TIME USE IN FOOD PREPARATION
BY MEN AND WOMEN AGE SIXTY-FIVE AND OLDER

By

Betty Ann Olson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Family Ecology

1978

ABSTRACT

TIME USE IN FOOD PREPARATION
BY MEN AND WOMEN AGE SIXTY-FIVE AND OLDER

By
Betty Ann Olson

A sample of 50 homemakers age 65 and older living in
one- and two-member independent households was interviewed to
determine the amount of time and the variables that influenced
time used in food preparation as part of household production.
A time-record chart and an interview schedule were used to
record time use and gather related data. Housing type and
physical health of the homemaker were found to be effective
estimators of time use in food preparation work. Age, number
of household members, socioeconomic status, level of liking
for food preparation activities, and level of satisfaction
with food preparation facilities were tested and determined

to be ineffective time-use estimators for older homemakers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express sincere appreciation
to Dr. Jean Schlater for her guidance and encouragement
to strive for an always higher level of sophistication in
the planning and preparation of this thesis.

Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Linda Nelson and
to Dr. J. Allan Beegle for their helpful suggestions.

The writer is grateful to Dr. Jean Warren for the
afternoon she spent discussing this thesis with her, and
to Dr. Kathryn Walker for her letters of support and
encouragement.

Special gratitude is expressed to the 50 homemakers

and their spouses for their participation in the study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .

The Older Family . . . . .
Independent Households . .
Household Production: Food
Relevance of Data . . . .
Objectives of the Study
Definition of Terms . .
Objectives . . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . .

coco-woo
'1‘

00.000.-
’6

O
O
a
C
O
O
O
I

Studies of Time Use in Household

The 1920s and 1930s . .
The 19hOs and 19508 . .
The 19605 and 19703 . .
Studies of Homemaking Work

III. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . .

Selection of Variables .
Selection of Sample . .
Selection of Instruments
Time-record Chart . .
Interview Schedule .
InterVieWS o o o o o
Validity and Reliabili y
Coding the Data . . . .
Time-record Chart . .
Interview Schedule .
Methods of Analysis . .
Descriptive Statistical
Inferential Statistical
Limitations of Study . . .
Correlational Analysis.
sample 0 n o o o o o o

Socioeconomic Status Measurement

iii

Units

Analysis
Analysis

’1
concomoo

d'
coco-H...

O
coon-:30.

Work

Page

\OCDVUIKJJWN H

iv
Chapter
IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . .

Descriptive Statistical Analysis . . . .
Characteristics of Independent Variables.
Characteristics and Content of the Work .

Inferential Statistical Analysis

by Hypotheses o I o o I o o o o o a

DISCUSSlon... coon-000.co-
Amount of Time Used . . . . . . .
Characteristics and Content of the Work
Findings Related to Hypotheses . . . .

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for Further Research . . . .

APPENDICES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I

A. FOOD PREPARATION SURVEY . . . .
B. FLYER . . . .
C. STATEMENT OF RESEARCH ETHICS . .
D. INTERVIEWER TRAINING PROCEDURE .
E. INTERVIEWING OLDER MEN AND WOMEN:
SOME CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF REFERENCES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Page

47
47
£18
58
73
87
87
91
96
101
106
109
109
125
128
129
132

140

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Distribution of Age Categories of Homemakers
by Household and Number of Household Members . . 51
2. Distribution of Age Categories by Sex,
Homemaker and Spouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3. Distribution of Households by Housing Type . . . 53
A. Distribution of Homemakers by Level of'Liking
for Food Preparation Activities . . . . . . . . . 54
5. Distribution of Levels of Socioeconomic Status. . 55

6. Distribution of Homemakers and Spouses
by Educational Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

7. Distribution of Homemakers and Spouses
by Occupational Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

8. Distribution of Households by Record Days
Of the week I I I I I I I I I I I ‘ I I I I I I I I 64

9. Average Daily Time for Thirteen Household Work
Activities and Percentage of Each in Total
Household Work Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

10. Work Space Available in Kitchens
by Selected Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

11. Storage Space Available in Kitchens
by Selected Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

12. Equipment Available for Food Preparation and
After-meal Cleanup by Selected Variables . . . . 68

13. Percentage of Households Using Selected Kitchen
Equipment on the Record Days and During the
Previous Seven Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

14. Distribution of Factors That Determine
Eating Out or Eating at Home . . . . . . . . . . 70

vi
Table Page

15. Types of Breakfasts, Lunches, and Dinners
Served on Record Days by Age of Homemaker . . . . 71

16. Types of Breakfasts, Lunches, and Dinners
Served on Record Days by Number of Household
Members I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 72

17. Rank and Partial Rank Correlation Coefficients
for Food Preparation Time of Homemakers
and Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

18. Food Preparation Time of Homemakers by Age
and Number of Household Members . . . . . . . . . 80

19. Food Preparation Time of Homemakers
by Housing Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

20. Food Preparation Time of Homemakers
by Number of Household Members . . . . . . . . . 82

21. Food Preparation Time of Homemakers by Level of
Liking for Food Preparation Activities . . . . . 83

22. Food Preparation Time of Homemakers
by Social Position Classes . . . . . . . . . . . 84

23. Food Preparation Time of Homemakers
by Level of Satisfaction with Physical Health . . 85

24. Food Preparation Time of Homemakers by Level of
Satisfaction with Food Preparation Facilities . . 86

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

All life and all things exist within boundaries.

This is a basic premise of the family ecosystem conceptual
approach. The meaning of anything, whether it is an object,
a feeling, or a relationship, is defined in part by its
boundaries. Life is similarly defined and understood, in
part, by conception, birth, and death, and is organized in
terms of these time boundaries. The knowledge of the cer—
tainty of death influences the planning and organizing of
time and alters the meaning of the way in which time is used.

Time possesses unique qualities. It is available to
each person in finite quantity. It provides a common frame
of reference for structuring life's activities. It is
irreversible and irreplaceable. And time is a central and
integrative resource; when any other resource is being used,
time is also being used.

These qualities make time an advantageous vehicle for
research. Time-use research provides a quantitative measure
of the temporal distribution of human activity that can, in
turn, establish a basis for qualitative understanding of
particular social groups. Time-use research also provides

a potential measure of social change. Heirich (1964) views
1

2

time, as an explanatory factor, a causal link between other
variables, a quantitative measure of them, and a qualitative
measure of their interplay, as central to models of social
change. Studies were conducted during the 1960s by Szalai
(1972. 1975). Chapin (1974), and Walker and Woods (1976)
that employed time use as an indicator of current economic
and social problems of the family. These studies will serve
as points for comparison with future findings as indicators

of social change.
THE OLDER FAMILY

The family continues to be the basic social unit in
America. In recent years the stage in the family life cycle
of the older family has become an important area for re-
search. The number of older families is growing. Most older
people live in families that consist of married couples (U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1976:#5). Presently, there are
about 23 million Americans over the age of 65. This growing
minority is expected to increase to 31 million by the
year 2000.

Formal interest in the older family in America did
not begin until the 1940s. The enactment of the Social
Security Act in 1935 set 65 as the age of eligibility for
pensions and established a formal definition of the lower
limit of old age. The Committee on Social Adjustments in
Old Age was established by Ewald Burgess in 1993, and the
gggggal_g§_§gggntglggy began publication in 19#6. The

relatively new fields of geriatrics and gerontology are

3

focusing on the problems and needs of older persons and are
providing impetus to the creation of policies and programs
designed to cope with the personal, social, health, housing,

and economic problems of aging and life extension.
INDEPENDENT HOUSEHOLDS

Approximately 75 percent of American men and women
aged 65 and older live in independent households. The pro-
portion of older individuals maintaining their own house-
holds has increased in the last decade. Such "primary"
individuals represented about 15 percent of the men and
37 percent of the women aged 65 and older in 1975, repre-
senting increases of 1 percent for men and 7 percent for
women from 1965 figures. During the same period there was a
considerable decline in the proportion of older persons
living with their children or other relatives. About 96 per-
cent of these individuals occupied their own housing entirely
alone as "one-person" households in 1975. Contrary to popu-
lar view, less than 5 percent of the older population lives

in institutions (U.S. Department of Commerce, 19761U9).
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION: FOOD PREPARATION

Men and women living in independent households
generally assume responsibility for their own household
production. Walker and Woods (1976sxx) define household
production or household work as "purposeful activities per-
formed in individual households to create the goods and

services that make it possible for a family to function as

4
a family." Using the term "household production" implies a
two-part process: production and consumption. The investi-
gator limited this study to those aspects of food prepara-
tion relevant to production by the homemaker. Time used for
consuming (eating) the food prepared, therefore, was outside
the context of food preparation as household production.
Also, time used in food preparation was limited to that
actually Spent preparing food in the household and did not
include shopping or menu planning, which were categorized as
marketing and management.

Beyer and Woods (1962) found that nine out of ten
older persons living alone prepared their own food, regard-
less of sex or age. Of all respondents aged 65 or older,

99 percent engaged in food preparation. Of all household
activities, preparing, eating, and cleaning up after meals
used the greatest amount of time; the median number of hours
was two and one-half, with 60 percent spending from two to
three hours per day. Food preparation is, therefore, a
large part of the daily experience of nearly all older men
and women.

In the present study, food preparation was composed
of three activities: regular meal preparation, special food
preparation, and afterameal cleanup. How much time is used
by men and women age 65 and older in these activities? What
is the variable most closely related to the time of home-
makers for all food preparation? What variables are the
most effective time-use estimators for older persons in the

area of food preparation? Specifically, does time use

5
increase as the age of the homemaker increases? Does time
use increase as level of satisfaction with health increases?
Is the socioeconomic level of the homemaker a factor that
affects time use? Is satisfaction with food preparation
facilities a significant factor? Are housing type or number

of household members factors?
RELEVANCE OF DATA

The answers to the questions above are significant.
They facilitate the identification of basic characteristics
and basic needs in a particular area of a considerable por-
tion of American society. Ethel Shanas (1966), one of the
few persons who has surveyed large numbers of older people,
has indicated that research on basic characteristics and
needs of older persons can have substantial impact on social
policy. The absence of data about the characteristics of
older people has led to an imbalance in research. Concen-
tration has been upon institutional development rather than
upon community services. According to Shanas, to order the
allocation of resources in behalf of older people on some
logical basis, some research must be directed toward the
accumlation of basic information on the characteristics of
older people.

From an ecological perspective, the data have human
and nonhuman resource-use and resource-allocation implica-
tions. The data are useful for identifying the resources
being used by older families in food preparation. For

example, how many and what appliances are being used? What

6
human and nonhuman resources are being used? Time is also
a resource; these data have value as time-use predictors for
this stage in the family life cycle. And a current measure
of resource use provides a basis for future comparisons.

How much food preparation will older people be doing
in the future? In a study conducted by Lopata (1966316),
the older women mentioned that they were "eating out a lot"
at this stage in the life cycle. And the number of opportué
nities for eating out for older people is increasing. The
1972 Nutrition Program for the Elderly Act provides low-cost
nutritious meals daily at conveniently located settings for
older people. An estimated five million Americans qualify
for this program. Some economists estimate that Americans
spend about 29 percent of their total food bill for eating
out. The Agriculture Department estimates that 37 percent
of the food bill is spent this way. Beyer and Woods (1962)
reported that about 90 percent of the older people they
interviewed sometimes ate out. Data from the present on the
amount of time used in food preparation in the home by older
men and women could be useful for future comparisons.

Most people experience a number of role changes at
retirement. Through the study of daily food preparation, an
activity in which nearly all older people engage, some new
insight could be gained regarding any changes in this area
that may be occuring in the division of labor or in sex
roles. Despite a reduction of gender differences in the
occupational world in recent years, the role of the home-

maker remains generally feminine. The questions may be

7

raised as to whether retirement affects this role, or if
marriages become more egalitarian in this stage of the fam-
ily life cycle. Data were collected in this study on the
amount of time used by spouses in food preparation as well
as in other household work.

And finally, the role of the unpaid household worker
has rarely been studied seriously or systematically. A
growing body of literature is currently drawing attention to
the disadvantaged position of homemakers in society. Ameri-
cans value that which can be equated in dollars and cents.
In this context, many political and economic implications
exist regarding household production, particularly as they
relate to the older family. Literature is also drawing
attention to a growing phenomenon of respectability in old
age, with creative performance, with its aspects of personal
dignity, with individuals, and with independence. The em-
phasis is shifting from the decrements of old age and their
remedies to the merits and positive qualities of aging.
Recognition of the services older people perform for them-
selves, particularly household production and in this study,

food preparation, reinforces the positive image of aging.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The overall objective of this investigation was to
study time use in food preparation work of men and women age
65 and older living in independent households. The amount
of time used in food preparation by 50 homemakers was meas-

ured using a time-record chart. An interview schedule was

8
employed to gather data relative to (1) the variables most
closely related to time use by homemakers for all food prep-
aration work and (2) the variables most effective as time-
use estimators for older homemakers in food preparation

work.
DEFINITION OF TERMS

Household production ggfihouseholg;work refers to pur-
poseful activities performed in individual households to
create the goods and services that make it possible for a
family to function as a family (Walker and Woods, 1976zxx).

Independent household or household refers to the in-
dividual or group of adults living alone in an apartment,
mobile home, two-family home, or one-family home.

Homemaker is the person, of either sex, for whom
household production is the primary responsibility or the
person primarily responsible for food preparation in the
household.

Older men and women, older person, older homemaker

refers to persons age 65 and older.

 

Tgtal time is the average amount of time used by all
household members in food preparation.

Primary, secondary, and travel time refer to the
three categories in which time use is measured (Walker and
Woods, xx).

Primagy time is the time during which the activity
engaged the worker's full attention.

9

Secondary_time is the time during which some work
was done on an activity while work on another
activity received primary attention.

Travel time is the time used for travel connected
with household work.

Foodppreparation is composed of three activities:
Regular meal preparation refers to the preparation
and serving of food for meals eaten at home by any
household member on the record days.

Special food preparation refers to nonroutine food
preparation activities such as holiday meals or
food for other special occasions, parties, and
community or group functions.

After—meglfcleanup includes time for after-meal
care of table, dishes, leftovers, kitchen equip-
ment, and refuse: and returning clean equipment,

dishes, and utensils to storage.
OBJECTIVES

The specific objectives of the study were as follows.

Objective 1: To compare the quantity of time used by
homemakers with the age-group categories.

Objective 2: To compare the quantity of time used by
homemakers with each of the house-type categories.

Objective 3: To compare the quantity of time used by
homemakers with the number of household members.

Objective A: To compare the quantity of time used by
homemakers with the homemaker's level of liking for
food preparation activities.

10

0bjectivep5: To compare the quantity of time used by
homemakers with their socioeconomic levels.

Objective_6: To compare the quantity of time used by
homemakers with level of satisfaction with physical
health.

Objective 7: To compare the quantity of time used by
homemakers with level of satisfaction with food prep-
aration facilities.

Objective 8: To determine and compare the quantity of
time used by homemakers in all household work activ-
ities with the quantity of time used in food prepara-
tion activities.

HYPOTHESES

The following hypotheses served as guides for this
investigation.

Hypothesis 1: Time use in food preparation increases
as the age of the homemaker increases.

Hypothesis 2: Time use in food preparation increases
as the complexity of housing type increases.

Hypothesis 3: Time use in food preparation increases
as the number of household members increases.

Hypothesis 0. Time use in food preparation increases
as the homemaker's level of liking for food prepara-
tion activities increases.

H othesis : Time use in food preparation increases
as the socioeconomic level of the homemaker decreases.

Hypothesis 6: Time use in food preparation increases
as the homemaker's level of satisfaction with physi-
cal health increases.

H othesis : Time use in food preparation increases
as the homemaker's level of satisfaction with food
preparation facilities increases.

Hypothesis 8: Time use in food preparation is greater
than time use for any other household work activity.

Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The review of relevant literature is presented in the
following sections: (1) studies of time use in household

work and (2) studies of homemaking work units.

STUDIES OF TIME USE IN HOUSEHOLD WORK

Time use in household production, in varying form and
content, has existed from the earliest times in history.
Serious, systematic research of household production began

in this century, and recently research interest in this sub-

ject has increased. Research specifically limited in param-

eter to time use in food preparation by older persons, ac-
cording to the literature examined, has not been conducted.
Older persons have been included in some studies, but none
of the studies examined made a distinction between younger
homemakers and older homemakers, or between those respon-

dents who had retired from occupational life and those who

had not. This study was limited to older homemakers who

were retired from occupational life.

11

12
The 1920s and 19303

Household production research gained impetus at the
beginning of this century with the passage of the Purnell
Act in 1925. Through state agricultural experiment stations,
the Purnell Act provided support for economic and socio-
logical research for the purpose of developing and improving
rural homes and rural life.

Farm women, therefore, were the subjects of the ma—
jority of time use and household work studies in the 1920s
and 1930s. These investigations were sponsored by the Home
Economics Bureau of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in
experiment stations, and were generally made using chrono-
logical records of activities for amounts of time ranging
from one day to a week or more. Time use was recorded by
means of diaries kept by the homemakers. This method of
data collection was dependent upon several factors including
recall ability (unless the homemaker recorded time use im-
mediately). intelligence, literacy, cooperativeness, per-
serverance, and attitude toward the study and toward house-
hold work recorded. The method of analysis generally used
by the early investigators was to group data into major
activity'categories for reporting total time units.

The first real attempt to describe the household work
JJDadusing the methods described above was made by Wilson
(1929) in Oregon. Her sample of 513 farm housewives submit-

ted time diaries for one week's activities in a 1926-27

Period. Wilson identified homemaking time allocations

13
of 288 farm, 71 village, and 154 city homemakers. She did
not classify subjects by age, according to information
available, however, she did identify about 31 percent of
her sample as having no children under 19 years with about
50 percent of these homemakers over the age of 48.

Wilson's major finding related to food preparation
was that of 51.6 hours per week devoted to homemaking,

47 percent was used in food activities. Factors identified
as affecting time use in food preparation were ages of
children, number of persons served, and physical facilities
of the kitchen.

Three other studies from this period were similar to
Wilson's work: Crawford (1927), Kneeland (1928), and Wasson
(1930). None gave age classifications. Crawford's 81 re-
spondents kept diaries for 24-hour periods for seven days.
Her food preparation time allocation (14.5 percent) was
expressed as a proportion of all activities of the homemaker,
however, food preparation took the most time of the home-
making activities.

Kneeland's 700 respondents used half of their weekly
homemaking time in preparation of meals and dishwashing (25
hours, 51 minutes). Wasson's sample of 100 also kept seven-
day diaries in 24-hour segments. She, too, found that food
preparation used 50 percent of homemaking time. All three
of these investigators identified size of family as a

factor that affected time use in food preparation.

14

Moser (1935) conducted a study specifically related
to food consumption and use of time for food work. She used
weekly time records in which the record keeper entered daily
the number of minutes spent by each worker in the food
activities specified. These activities were classified un—
der two headings: household food work and farm work. The
household food work activities included preparation of regu-
lar meals, lunches and extra meals, clearing away after
meals, baking and other quantity cooking, preservation of
foods, refreshments for social affairs, and other work not
covered in these categories.

Moser, who analyzed her data by race, found that
white households used 31.3 and black households used 25.4
hours per week in household food activities. The factors
Moser identified as affecting time use were size of house-
hold, work and storage facilities available, standards for
cooking and meal service, number of variety of foods appear—
ing in the diet list, and the cost of the diet. Some of the
limitations of this study, in addition to the data collec-
tion and analysis methods used, were lack of control for
certain variables such as season of the year and day of the
week, and the exlusion of certain food producing activities
from the measurement such as raising grain and other field
crops for household consumption.

It was during this time period that Warren (1940)
collected data on time use in its relation to home manage-

ment. Warren was interested in measuring the amount and

15
describing the kinds of work done in homes. Her study of
more than 500 farm households determined the activities of
the homemakers, the time used for these activities, the
causes of variation in the time used, and the work load in
different households. An attempt was made to measure the
work loads by constructing work units that could then be
used in studying other households and could prove useful in
studying methods and practices used in accomplishing similar
amounts of home work in varying periods of time. Warren
obtained her data by personal interview. As "enumerator"
she recorded time used by homemakers and helpers for various
homemaking activities on the weekday preceding the inter-
view. Her finding in food preparation was that it accounted
for about 33 percent of the time spent by the homemakers
on homemaking. Factors she identified as affecting time use
were number of children, amount of volunteer or paid work
or activity outside the home, and the homemaker's like or

dislike for the activity.

The_19408 and 19508

Two studies from the 19403 relevant to food prepara-
tion and time use are those that were conducted by Dickens
(1943) and Muse (1946).

Dickens used a diary method to study time eXpendi-
tures during one week by homemakers and by all workers in
homemaking activities in 80 white and 80 black town families
of Mississippi. Households were classified by the amount

of monthly rent paid or the monthly rental value of the

16
home. These categories were: under $7.50, $7.51 to $20.00,
$20.01 to $40.00, and $40.01 and above. Dickens found that
more time was spent by all groups (26-27 hours) in food
I homemaking than all other homemaking activities combined.
Time expenditures on meal preparation and clearing away
after meals were relatively higher in white families of the
$20.01 to $40.00 housing value than other categories for
white or black respondents. Black homemakers had more help
in care of the house, white homemakers in meal preparation
and clearing away. All had more help in clearing away than
in food preparation. Dicken's findings were valid for the
summer season only.

Muse studied 183 farm homemakers in Vermont. Data
were collected, through personal interviews, for the time
used on homemaking activities during a summer week. Home-
makers were not classified by age, but by number of child—
ren. 0f the homemaking time, 25 percent was used in food
preparation and 15 percent in dishwashing. The hours spent
on food preparation increased as the household size in-
creased. Muse attempted to determine whether households
with high time expenditures served "better" meals than those
with low time expenditures. Muse considered the menus
reported by each homemaker when asked what she served for
her usual breakfast, lunch, and dinner. These menus were
sorted into three classes that represented "poorest,"
"average," and "best" meals. For each family all three

nmals were considered as a unit on the basis of their

17
probable nutritive value and the variety offered. The
classification of the menus was based on the standards of
the investigator and not on those of the families. Muse
found no correlation between the classification of the menus
and time expenditure. She did find a relationship between
time used in food preparation and the amount of help given
the homemaker, the condition of the kitchen and equipment,
the like or dislike of the homemaker for food preparation,
and the skill level of the homemaker in cooking and manage-
ment.

During the 1950s interest in time use in the home
increased. Concentration shifted from farm to urban house-
holds. With automation and technological advancements,
lifestyle changes, and development and use of commercial
services, urban areas were changing more than rural areas.

Wiegand (1953) was the first to compare time use for
household work activities of urban homemakers with rural
homemakers. She used an interview method to collect data
from 95 farm full-time, 102 city full-time, and 53 employed
city homemakers. Time use was recorded for the weekday
preceding the interview and for the preceding Saturday or
Sunday. 0f Wiegand's sample of 250, about 32 were between
60 and 80 years of age. About 25 percent of the homemaker's
time was spent in food preparation. The homemakers in all-
adult families of three or four persons used the most time
for food preparation. She found that as the size of the

household increased or if the household included one or more

18

children under 4 years of age, the amount of time spent in

housework increased. Meals were classified by complexity:

the average time used for food preparation increased as the
number of complex meals increased. Wiegand, in this study,
also further developed the work unit, the amount of house-

hold work done by an average worker in one hour under aver-
age conditions.

Warren, Muse, and Wiegand employed the same classifi-
cations for homemaking activities, so that it was possible
from Wiegand's study to compare the amounts of time used in
each activity to observe any trends that had developed.

From the time Warren conducted her study in the same county
and township in 1936, Wiegand found great improvement in
household equipment. The percentage of farm houses having
an electric or gas refrigerator, running hot or cold water,
an electric range, and a furnace had greatly increased. In
1952, as in 1936, the largest proportion of homemaking time
used by homemakers was for food preparation. The percentage
of time used for food preparation decreased from 29 to 24
percent. The percentage of time used for dishwashing re—
mained about the same.

Cowles and Dietz (1956) studied 83 selected Wisconsin
farm homemakers in which records of a week's time were kept
by the women. Time sheets were used for recording all ac-
tivities by 5-minute intervals for seven consecutive days.
INhen the women were classified by age (under 35 years, 36-49

:years, and 50 years and older), the youngest group used the

19
most time in household work. Factors Cowles and Dietz de-
termined affected the amount of time Spent in food prepar-
ation were: (1) necessity of preparing special meals or
packing lunches for family members unable to eat with the
family at the usual time or place or in need of special
food, (2) amount of baking done, and (3) character of the

kitchen arrangement.

The 1960s and 1920s

In general, time studies in the late 1950s, in the
1960s and 1970s have followed a trend toward greater depth
through analysis of factors associated with time use.

Methods of studying the homemaker's use of time have
usually been obtained from the homemaker through records or
through recall, often for a very recent period, or by esti-
mate. Data have then been analyzed_by associated factors.

Nelson (1963) used a different approach. In Costa
Rica, Nelson developed a study of activity patterns as an
approach to understanding how time functions in home manage-
ment. An activity pattern was defined as the ordering of
tasks that is characteristic of a person or group of persons
during some specified time span. In Nelson's study, activ-
ity patterns were organized around meal preparation. She
obtained her data by observation, recording each detail of
the pattern. Her sample of 19 randomly-selected homemakers
xwas observed during day-long time spans and provided inter-

'views preceding and following each observation.

20

Beyer and Woods (1962) reported a study conducted
between 1958 and 1960 by the Bureau of Old Age and Survivors
Insurance on living and activity patterns of the aged. The
report was based on interviews with 5202 persons aged 65 and
older living in four different regions of the United States.
Time use was recorded by the interviewer for the preceding
day. The study found two and one-half hours was the median
amount of time spent in preparing, eating, and cleaning up
after meals, with 60 percent spending from two to three
hours per day. This was the largest proportion of time
spent on obligated-time activities by the aging. The other
activities were: housework, personal care, shopping and
related activities, and care of others. Factors affecting
time use were not determined.

The UNESCO-sponsored European Coordination Center for
Research and Documentation in Social Sciences study is the
most comprehensive time-use study ever conducted. This
multinational research was conducted in 12 countries includ-
ing the United States in 1964. Szalai (1972) published the
completed study. The research was designed so that the data
collected from the 12 countries could be compared. Nonwork
time use was the emphasis of the research, however, time-use
comparisons were made for paid work, household work, free
time, and sleep for employed men and employed women as well
as for women not in the labor force. The sample was limited
to persons between the ages of 18 and 65, although a few

older persons were included because they lived in a house-

21
hold with a wage earner between those ages. Food prepara-
tion, categorized separately as cooking and cleaning up,
accounted for the largest proportion of time Spent in house-
work. Associated factors were not discussed in relation to
food preparation.

A study conducted by Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt
(1966:109) offered explanatory factors for determining the
amount of time family heads and wives together devoted to
regular housework. This study did not determine the amount
of time spent specifically in food preparation, but did
determine that spent in all housework. Factors the in-
vestigators found, importance-ordered, are listed below.

*Sex and marital status of head of family
*Number of people in the family
*Age of the youngest child under 18 living at home
Number of rooms in home
Number of automatic home appliances
Age of head of family
Hours of work for money in 1964 by all members
of the family
Type of structure in which family lives
Hours lost from work in 1964 by head of family
and wife from illness or unemployment
Size of place (town) where family lives
Whether it was difficult to hire outside help
for work around the house
*Education of head of family
Number of years lived in present home
Asterisked variables, in order of their importance, explain-
ed 33 percent of the variance in this study. Data were
obtained through personal interviews with 2214 adults. The
number of respondents aged 65 and older was 416.
Walker and Woods (1976) surveyed a random sample of

1296 households drawn from names of families stratified by

22

32 different combinations of family composition in the Syra-
cuse, New York area in 1967-68. Their primary objective was
the further development of a method of measuring the produc-
tion of services and goods in family households. The sample
included 42 families over the age of 55. The major finding
was the clear and direct relationship between certain family
characteristics and time used to provide major kinds of

household services. Family composition related more closely
to time use for household work than any other variable.

Housework activities were listed in 13 categories on
a time-record chart. Each homemaker recorded time used by
each worker in the appropriate category in 10-minute inter-
vals for two 24-hour periods. Two interviews were held with
each homemaker to obtain supplementary data.

Three of the 13 household-work categories were relat-
ed to food preparation: these were regular meal preparation,
Special food preparation, and after-meal cleanup. Number of
children in the household was found to be the variable most
closely related to time of all workers for all food prepara-
tion. Two other variables, age of youngest child and em-
ployment of wives, while significantly related to other
activities, were low for regular meal preparation and after-
meal cleanup.

An accomplishment of Walker and Woods's study was the
development of a means of recording data on time use that is
easy to use, provides for accurate reporting, and is econom-

ical to administer. This study resulted in the development

23
of an extensive data bank of household-work information and
familial-descriptive data combined with time-use data. The
findings are a step toward Walker and Woods's ultimate goal

of placing a monetary value on household production.
STUDIES OF HOMEMAKING WORK UNITS

The relationship between time use and household work
produced has been studied for many years at Cornell Univer-
sity. The first homemaking work units to provide a basis
for comparing time costs in the household were developed
there by Warren (1940). Her aim was to find some measure
that could be used in comparing the work loads in different
households, similar to the productive-man-work unit used in
studying farm management. The farm-work unit scaled amounts
of widely different kinds of work output into units of time.

Warren found that the amount of time used in each
household varied according to such factors as number of fam-
ily members, age of youngest child, or size of dwelling.
Warren's major contribution was to quantify the amount of
work in several major activities by isolating the one factor
that appeared to have the most effect on the work load in an
activity. The work unit showed the average time cost of
doing a certain quantity of work. Warren's research pro-
vided the basis for the studies made by Wiegand, Walker, and
Walker and Woods.

In 1954, Walker (1957) attempted to add to the devel-

opment of a measure of household production that could be

24

used by professionals in any field when needed. Walker,
utilizing Wiegand's (1953) data on time use, developed six
types of quantitative work units. Walker (1957:3) defined a
work unit in homemaking as "the amount of household work
done in one hour under average conditions by an average
worker." The Six values were for meal preparation, dish-
washing, physical care of family members, washing clothes,
ironing clothes, and regular care of the house. Approxi-
mately 78 percent of the total time used in homemaking was
accounted for by these six tasks. For each activity, vari-
ous factors were studied to determine the one that had the
most decided influence on the total time for a given task.
These activities and the variables most closely related to
time used for them were listed by Walker as follows.

Meal preparation complexity of meals

served (number of dishes

and degree of manipula-
tion required to prepare

them)
Regular house care presence or absence
of children ,
Physical care of number and ages of
family members children
Washing clothes number of loads
of washing
Ironing clothes number of pieces ironed
Dishwashing number of persons in the
household

The complexity of meals was determined by Walker by
the amount of handling required to process the food and the
time taken to prepare the meal. On this basis, she defined

four categories of meal types, Types 1, 2, 3, and 4, from

25
least to highest complexity. Walker's (1958:?) definitions

were 8

Breakfast types

Type 1
Any number of easily prepared foods or

one or two items requiring some prepara-
tion plus any number of easily prepared
foods

Type 2
Three dishes requiring some preparation

plus any number of easily prepared foods
or one time-consuming dish plus any
number of easily prepared foods

Noon and evening meal types

Type 1
Any number of already prepared or

quickly prepared foods

Type 2
Leftovers somewhat changed in form plus

Type 1 or one time-consuming dish plus
one to four already or quickly prepared
foods

Type 3

One time-consuming dish plus five or
more already or quickly prepared foods
or two or three time—consuming dishes
plus Type 1

Type 4
Four or more time-consuming dishes plus

Type 1

Walker (1957:4) states that work units provide a
means for comparing the amount of time used by a particular
family with the amount of time used in average households to
do a similar amount of work. The work units enable one to
measure approximately the amount of work to be done in the
home: they do not provide a measure of how well it is done,
by whom it is done. nor with what equipment the work is
done. "Neither satisfaction nor quality is measured by

work units."

26

Gage (1960) tested the usefulness of the work unit as
a means of collecting data for potential use in determining
the economic value of household production. Gage inter-
viewed 50 homemakers in Tompkins County, New York, to learn
the number of units-of-work produced by each homemaker on
one day. Using established work units, she multiplied them
by the prevailing wage rates for each type of work. Gage
concluded that homemakers chose to perform that part of the
workload that had the greatest monetary value.

Maloch (1962) determined the workload and the charac-
teristics of most and least liked household tasks for 120
homemakers in Binghamton, New York. Her study was not con-
cerned with identification of liked or disliked tasks, but
with the characteristics that made them most or least liked.
Characteristics, according to Maloch, were thought to cut
across task lines. She attempted to identify the reasons
tasks were most or least liked so that further research
could help find ways of altering the characteristics. 0f
the most liked tasks, the characteristics Maloch found were
pride in results, satisfaction, adequate equipment, and
results that were appreciated by the family. The character-
istics of the least liked tasks were identified as short-
term results, monotony, not creative, use of little mental
skill, and another adult not generally present. Maloch
found no relationship between work-unit value and attitude

toward most and least liked tasks.

27

The study of work units has been carried on at Purdue
University by Manning (1968), where she directed a major
study on use of all workers' time on household work in
1961-62. This is the most complete investigation of time
use and work output in household activities done aside from
the work at Cornell.

Manning's research determined work unit values for
111 households in Indiana limited to homemakers under age
70. She did not report food preparation time use by spe—
cific age categories. Manning found that variability of
time use related to standards of housekeeping more than to
any other factor, and a beginning was made in relating atti-
tudes of like or dislike of household tasks toward time used
for them.

Walker and Woods (1976) at Cornell University recent-
ly completed an extensive study, the primary objective of
which was the further development of a method of measuring
the production of goods and services in family households.
0n the basis of Walker's (1957) previous research in which
she identified six types of quantitative work units and the
variables most closely related to them, Walker and Woods
tested and affirmed the hypothesis that the amount of work
in the household varied principally in relation to changes
in family composition. The most important result of the
study was the confirmation of a direct relationship between
family composition and time spent on household work, thus
allowing the use of amount of time Spent on the work to be-

come a measure of household production.

Chapter III

PROCEDURE

This research was based on and employed specifically
selected parts of the instruments from the study conducted
in 1967-68 by Kathryn E. Walker and Margaret E. Woods (1976):
Time Use: A Measure pféHousehold Production of Family Goods
and Services. This investigator correSponded with Walker
during the initial phase of the study and received Walker's
support and encouragement. Walker provided a sufficient
quantity of the instruments from the 1967-68 study to be
used in this investigation.

The primary objective of the Walker and Woods work
was the further development of a method of measuring the
production of goods and services in family households. 0n
the basis of previous research, Walker and Woods tested and
affirmed the hypothesis that the amount of work in the
household varied principally in relation to changes in fam-
ily compostion.

The overall hypothesis tested in this study was that
time used in food preparation work by men and women age 65
and older it: a function of the homemaker's age, housing
type, number of household members, level of liking for food
preparation activities, socioeconomic position, health, and

28

29

level of satisfaction with food preparation facilities.
SELECTION OF VARIABLES

Control variables relating to the overall hypothesis
were household composition, age of household members, geo-
graphical location of residence, season of the year, and
day of the week. Household composition was limited to one-
and two—member households. Age was limited to 65 and older.
Geographical location was an urban-suburban type of area,
Lansing, Michigan. Each season of the year has character—
istics and special activities that affect the total food
preparation work load: this study limited season of the year
to winter. Also taken into consideration were the varying
amounts of time used on some food preparation activities on
different days and on weekends compared with weekdays. An
attempt was made to control for this variable, a minor vari-
ation was a relatively even distribution for all days except
Tuesday, which had a larger distribution, and Saturday,
which had a smaller distribution.

Data were collected for selected independent vari-
ables related to certain socioeconomic characteristics of
the household and physical aspects of the food preparation
work environment. Characteristics considered as attributes
of the social environment in which the food preparation
activities were conducted were: socioeconomic status (edu—
cation and occupation before retirement), age and sex char-

acteristics of household members, and characteristics of the

30

househOld as a unit, such as special family or household
situations, and household food preparation practices.
Physical characteristics selected as most likely to describe
the typical household food preparation environment were:
features of the housing (type of housing, age of housing),
availability of adequate work and storage space, and other
special use spaces, and availability and use of household
food preparation equipment.

Data were collected for the dependent variable,
amount of time used in food preparation, for two days from

each household.
SELECTION OF SAMPLE

The study was conducted in Lansing Michigan and
surrounding area where urban-suburban population is pre-
dominant and number of persons age 65 and older is large.
The 1970 Census Tracts Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham Counties) figure for per-
sons age 65 and older is 25,998 (U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 1970). This geographical area was also easily
accessible to the researcher.

The non-random sample was drawn from within three
senior citizen nutrition program groups: Delta-Waverly
39ers Club, Gier Park Senior Citizens, and Grand Ledge
Senior Citizens. These groups were chosen because of the
relationship of the investigator to the Delta-Waverly 39ers

Club and because of the willingness of each of the groups

31
to cooperate. Having worked as a volunteer with the Delta-
Waverly 39ers Club for several months prior to initiating
the study, the investigator had established considerable
rapport with the group, facilitating entry into the other
two groups for eliciting respondents.

To recruit respondents, a presentation was given by
the investigator to each of the groups explaining the pur—
pose of the study and the help needed. A flyer (Appendix B)
was prepared and distributed by the investigator that con-
tained further explanation.

Sample size was evenly divided between one- and two-
member households giving a total of 75 participants in
the study.

A pretest was administered to five persons resulting
in the following instrument revisions and additions.

1. A statement of research ethics was prepared to
guide the study (Appendix C).

2. Coding numbers were added to the schedule to
facilitate the coding process.

3. Division between the questions for the first
interview and those for the second was more
clearly delineated on the instrument.

4. Four questions were reworded to facilitate

coding.

32
SELECTION OF INSTRUMENTS

The design of the research involved two instruments
from the Walker and Woods study: the time-record chart and
the interview schedule. The time-record chart was used
unmodified. The interview schedule was modified to narrow
its scope. While Walker and Woods examined in depth the
factors related to the use of time in 13 inclusive areas of
household work, the scope of the present study was limited

to the food preparation area of household production.

Time-record Chart

The time-record chart was used to collect data for
the dependent variable, the amount of time spent on food
preparation as part of household production by each house—
hold member. All time during a 24-hour period was recorded,
permitting comparison of time used in food preparation with
time used for other household work. By recalling time use
for 24-hour spans, the homemaker may have more accurately
estimated time use for each activity than he or she would
have had he or she considered the activity out of context.
One person, the homemaker, recorded time use for the entire
household.

Primary, secondary, and travel time were recorded, in
which primary household work time was the time when the
activity engaged the worker's full attention. To delineate
primary time, secondary and travel time were recorded sepa-

rately. Secondary time was that spent on an activity in

33
combination with another (primary) activity that received
the worker's main attention. Travel time accounted for a
part of the time used for several household activities and
was considered an integral part of time use for the activity.
Time was recorded on the chart across the horizontal
axis in 10-minute intervals, dividing the intervals in half
if a 5-minute interval was appropriate for reporting, so
that 5 minutes was the smallest time interval recorded.
Time use was recorded in 13 classifications listed
on the vertical axis, which were: regular meal preparation,
Special food preparation, after-meal cleanup: regular house
care, special house care and maintenance, and care of yard
and car; washing, ironing, and special care of clothing;
physical and nonphysical care of family members; marketing
and management. To provide categories for a record of the
full 24-hour period, two additional blocks were used to
record time spent on nonhousehold activities: (1) other work
(work other than household work) including volunteer work,
and (2) other activities, including all personal, family,
and social activities.
Each worker's time use was coded and identified on
the chart by a letter and color:
Female homemaker recorded in red
Male homemaker recorded in blue
Female spouse recorded in brown
Male Spouse recorded in black
Written definitions of what work was to be included
in each household work classification and written instruc—

tions used by the interviewer to explain how to complete the

34
time-record chart were those as used in the 1967-68 Walker
and Woods study. They were read aloud by the interviewer to
the respondent and kept by the homemaker to be used when

completing the chart.

Interview Schedule

The interview schedule was designed to collect data
on the independent variables, the factors hypothesized to
affect the amount of time used in food preparation. Parts
of the Walker and Woods instrument appropriate to the food
preparation area were used and other questions directly re-
lated to the hypotheses and objectives of this investigator
were added. Additional questions as they appeared on the
schedule (Appendix A) were: numbers 3 through 8, which iden-
tified the ages and marital state of household members; num-
bers 38 through 42, which identified certain factors that
influence whether or not older persons eat at home or eat
out; numbers 47 and 48 asked about desired appliances or
changes in kitchen design; and numbers 74 and 75 were added
to gather data on health status of the homemaker.

The format of the interview schedule was designed by
the investigator to include the coding form and numbers to
.facilitate the coding process.

An interviewer was hired to conduct some of the
iinterviews: she completed seven. The procedure used to

“train the interviewer is outlined in Appendix D.

Interviews

35

Interviews were conducted in the following order.

1. First interview (recall day)

a.

The respondent, who had stated willingness to
participate, was contacted and an appointment
was arranged.

At the appointed time the investigator began
the interview by reading the cover page of the
schedule to the participant stating the ethical
guidelines to be followed.

The investigator explained the study and the
respondent's part in it to the participant.
Data on the household were collected.
Background data on the household activities
performed and food preparation equipment used
on the preceding day were recorded.
Definitions of activities were read to the
homemaker.

Procedure for completing the time chart was
explained.

Homemaker's time use for the preceding day was
recorded by the investigator.

The completed time chart and a second chart to
be filled in the next day were left with the
homemaker.

An appointment for the second interview was

made.

36

2. Second interview (record day)

This interview was held two days after the first

interview.

a. Time-record charts were collected and care-
fully reviewed by the investigator for com-
pleteness, consistency, and accuracy. Any
necessary corrections were made.

b. Background data on food preparation activities
performed and equipment used on the preceding
day were collected.

c. General supplementary information on activities
performed and equipment used for the preceding
seven days as well as background information
on household members was collected.

3. Follow-up procedure

Each respondent was sent a letter at the com-

pletion of the study describing the major findings

and giving written appreciation for his or her
cooperation.

While the investigator found information available
in research methods literature concerning interviewing tech-
niques helpful and incorporated many of the techniques into
the procedure outlined above, the experience obtained from
actually conducting the interviews provided further in;
Sights. These insights together with viewpoints from the
ILiterature are combined in Appendix E for the potential

1>enefit of others who may be conducting research with an

<>lder population.

37
VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Validity of the time-use data depended on how accur-
ately homemakers and interviewer classified use of time of
all household members in the categories on the time-record
chart. Walker and Woods set up safeguards by strategic
use of questions in the interview schedule to decrease the
possibility of incomplete or unusual records. This investi—
gator made certain that each instrument was complete: there
were no missing data. Personal interviews insured that
homemakers understood the classifications and definitions of
terms. Insofar as possible, Walker and Woods, as well as
this investigator, attempted to word all questions on the
interview schedule to eliminate interviewer bias.

The time-record chart was designed by Walker and
Woods to remove the possibility of influencing the homemaker
by presenting preconceived ideas of how household work
actiVities should be conducted. By using an open format
with only broad household work classifications as opposed to
itemized work or routine lists, the homemaker was free to
record time as She usually used it, uninfluenced by sugges-
tion. Time-use records for two days increased representa-
tiveness, especially for less regularly performed activities.
The 24-hour record was intended to decrease the exaggeration
of error of recall in recording use of time. Time-record
tiata were checked with data on the interview schedule for
(consistency and accuracy. Coding transferred to mark-sense

:Eorms for both instruments was check coded for accuracy

38

by a person not involved in the investigation.
CODING THE DATA

Time:pecord Chart

Use of the 13 classifications facilitated coding.
Data were tallied by a coding system for primary time use
for each household member for each work activity. The
amounts of time were recorded on mark-sense forms and

mechanically punched onto data cards.

Interview Schedule

Data from the interview schedules were also mechan-
ically punched directly onto cards from mark-sense forms.
Certain questions required hand coding. Complex coding
procedures were required for coding types of meals served.
Each menu item was coded at the time of the interview as to
preparation state (for example, fresh, frozen, or canned)
and as to number of cooking and noncooking operations
involved in its preparation.

Following check coding of data from both instruments,

a codebook was prepared by the investigator.
METHODS OF ANALYSIS

Analysis was made using descriptive and inferential

statistical methods.

I)escriptive Statistical Analysis

Descriptive analysis was made for both instruments

13y using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

39
(Nie et al., 1975) V 7.0 program, "Descriptive Statistics

and One-Way Frequency Distributions: Subprogram Frequencies:
One-Way Frequency Distributions with Descriptive Statistics."
This program determined the basic distributional character-
istics of each of the variables and was used in the sub-
sequent inferential analysis. Subprogram "Frequencies" com-
puted and presented summary statistics for mean, median,
mode, standard deviation, variance, and histograms for each
variable, as well as absolute, relative, adjusted and cumu-
lative frequencies.

Descriptive analysis was computed for all variables
and for spouses as well as homemakers. This analytical pro-
cedure was used to test hypothesis 8: time use in food prep-
aration is greater than time use for any other work activity.

After examining the distribution of the variables,
sets of relationships among two or more of the variables
were investigated by doing contingency table (crosstabula-‘
tion) analyses. A crosstabulation is a joint frequency dis-
tribution of cases according to two or more classificatory
variables (Nie et al., 1975). This kind of analysis facil-
itates the study of relations by arranging data into tabular
frequencies that give clarity to trends and patterns in the
relationship. The SPSS program, "Contingency Tables and
Related Measures of Association: Subprogram Crosstabs," was

used to compute this analysis.

40

Inferential Statistical Analysis

To determine the degree of statistical relationship
between time used by homemakers in food preparation and the
independent variables of the study, the nonparametric meas-
ure of rank correlation, Kendall Tau (Siegel, 1956) was
used. The Kendall Tau correlation coefficient is designed
to measure the degree of correlation between the ordinal
rankings of two variables and to determine the probability
of the occurance of a correlation as large as the one ob-
served in the sample. Hayes (1973) states that the advant-
age of using Kendall Tau in the test of the hypothesis of
independence is the fairly rapid convergence of its sampling
distribution to normal form. According to Siegel (1956),
with a sample size larger than eight, the sampling distribu-
tion of Kendall Tau becomes similar to a normal distribution
and the significance of the values may be determined. The
Kendall Tau correlation shows whether an association exists
between variables and the degree of relationship, but it
does not necessarily imply causation. The Kendall Tau
correlation statistic is included as an option in the sub-
program "Crosstabs," SPSS, the program used to compute this
statistic. This analytical procedure was used to test hy-
potheses one through seven.

Partial rank correlations were determined for the
independent variables. A partial correlation involves the
relationship between two variables in a situation where

three or more variables are present, holding all the

41
other independent variables, one or more, constant and
allowing the two tested variables to vary (Isaac and Michael,
1971). The purpose of partial correlation is to determine
the strength of the relationships. Since some of the varie
ables related to time use are likely to be interrelated, it
is necessary to determine the effect of a given variable on
food preparation work time when a third variable is held
constant. The SPSS program, "Crosstabs," computed the
partial correlations using the appropriate Kendal Tau
statistic.

In using correlational analysis, variables must be
ranked. This study used the ranking order determined by
Walker and Woods, with the exception of those for age and
health that were added to the study and ranked by this in-
vestigator. Walker and Woods state that the basis for the
rankings varied: some are quantitative, while others do not
have meaning on an ordinal scale. The following rankings
were used for the variables.

Age ranking: from lowest to highest
number of years
1. 65-69

2. 70-74

a. 75-79
. 80-84
5- 85-89

Type 9f housing: from least to most complex
1. Apartment
2. Mobile home
a. Two-family home
. One-family home

Number of persons in the household
1. One-member household

2. Two-member household

1.2

Level of liking for food preparation activities:
from least to most

1.
2.

E:
2:

Dislike very much
Dislike

Dislike somewhat
Like somewhat
Like

Like very much

Type of meal: from simple to complex

1.

Type 1

Very simple meals that require almost no
preparation (three or fewer cooking or
noncooking operations)

Type 2

Meals that require easy cooking operations,
such as heating or toasting or limited non-
cooking operations (a total of four to seven
operations)

Type 3

Partially prepared foods that largely
combine cooking and noncooking operations
(a total of eight to fourteen operations)
Type 4

Meals with one or more menu items that
require some preparation at home, combining
cooking and noncooking operations

(a total of 15 to 24)

Type 5

Meals containing at least one totally home-
prepared dish, or several items requiring
home preparation: all a combination of
noncooking and cooking operations (a total
of 25 or more)

Socioeconomic level of the household: from highest
level (lowest scores) to lowest level (highest
scores) based on Hollingshead's Two Factqp
Index of Social Position

2.

2:

5.

11-17
18-27
28-43
44-60
61-77

Physical health of the homemaker

1.
2.

Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent

43

Satisfaction with food preparation facilities

1.
2.
3.

50

Very unsatisfactory
Fairly unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Satisfactory

Fairly satisfactory
Very satisfactory

Equipment: from most to least automatic

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7o
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13c

Freezer

Oven

Broiler

Dishwasher

Electric fry pan

Pressure cooker

Kitchen exhaust fan
Garbage disposer

Electric mixer or blender
Vacuum cleaner

Carpet sweeper or electric broom
Outdoor grill

Broom

LIMITATIONS OF STUDY

Correlational Analysis

The purpose of correlational analysis is to investi-

gate the extent to which variations in one factor correspond

with variations in one or more other factors based on corre-

lational coefficients. Among the limitations inherent in

the correlational method are the following (Isaac and

Michael, 1971).

1. It only identifies what correlates with what,

not necessarily identifying cause and effect

relationships.

2. Because it does not identify cause and effect

relationships it is less rigorous than true

experimental research which exercises more

control over the independent variables.

44

3. It is prone to identify spurious relational
patterns or elements that have little or no
reliability or validity. An attempt was made
in this study to overcome this limitation by
using crosstabulation or joint contingency
tables, the purpose of which is to study and
test a relationship between two variables while
controlling for the effects of a third variable,

unmasking "spurious" relationships.

Sample

Characteristics of the subjects and the manner in
which they are selected determine how extensively findings
can be generalized. In this investigation subjects were
volunteer participants from a population of three senior
citizen groups. The findings are therefore limited in

generalizability.

Sgcigeconomic Status Measurement

Status measures in general differentiate among per-
sons on the basis of some set of characteristics unevenly
distributed in the population and deemed important. Socio-
economic status was considered and was determined in this
study by using the Hollingshead (1957) ng Factor Index of
Social Position. Generally, this index, based on occupation
and education of the head of household, provides an objective
and easily applied means of stratifying a sample into social

classes.

45

Socioeconomic status is widely used as a variable in
sociological analysis, however, gerontologists contend that
the methodology of assigning socioeconomic status fails to
capture the current status of older men and women (Kutner et
al., 1956). The Hollingshead analysis is appropriate for a
certain time span within the life cycle, that of the working
years that include breadwinning activities, adult consump-
tion styles, and development and maintenance of social repu-
tation. The current lifestyle of older men and women may
include retirement, widowhood, and a variety of physical,
mental, and economic decrements, as well as culturally
valued attributes such as accrued wisdom.

Bloom (1972) has suggested a procedure for indicating
the socioeconomic status of older persons that is more mean-
ingful that methods currently used. He suggests that the
major source of income of the older person be added as a
qualifying factor to the two factors of Hollingshead's index
in order to more nearly approximate the several components
of socioeconomic status (power, information, social status,
economic status) as set within the time perspective of the
human life-span and sensitive to it. He states this may be
accomplished by arbitrarily assigning a weight to a major
source of income equal to the combined weights that have
been allocated to the educational and occupational levels
in the Hollingshead index. Since Bloom's method for more
accurately measuring current socioeconomic status of older

jpersons is still in the exploratory research stage, it was

46
not available for use in this study. Socioeconomic status,
therefore, has been determined based upon the working years

of the life cycle.

Chapter IV

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The overall hypothesis to be tested was that time
use in food preparation by men and women age 65 and older
is a function of the homemaker's age, housing type, number
of household members, level of liking for food preparation
activities, socioeconomic position, health, and level of
satisfaction with food preparation facilities.

Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses are
presented in this chapter followed by discussion of the

findings.
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Descriptive analysis is presented in two parts:
(1) characteristics of independent variables and (2) char-
acteristics and content of the work in food preparation.
All tables pertinent to descriptive analysis are presented

at the end of each part. Measures of central tendency are

reported.

47

48
Characteristics of Independent Variables
Tables pertinent to characteristics of independent

variables are presented on pages 51 through 57.

Age of homemaker. Respondents represented an overall age
Span of 65 to 89 years. The largest group (42 percent) was
in the 65—69 age category (Table 1). The three male home-
makers were represented in the 65-69 and 80-84 age cate-
gories; the two female spouses were represented in the 75-79

and 80-84 age categories (Table 2).

Housing typ . The majority of the sample lived in one-family
homes (64 percent). Most of the remainder lived in apart-
ments (26 percent). four families lived in mobile homes,

and one lived in a two-family home (Table 3).

Household composition. The sample was evenly divided between
one- and two-member households. Female homemakers were pre-
sent in 94 percent of the households, male homemakers in

6 percent. There were 23 single female homemakers and two
single male homemakers. All but two female homemakers had

been married at some time during their lives.

Level of liking for food_prep§§§$ipp_§2$;yi§i§§. This char-
acteristic was determined for each of the three food prep-
aration categories: regular meal preparation, special food
preparation, and after-meal cleanup (Table 4).

Nearly all (98 percent) of the respondents indicated

21 degree of liking for regular meal preparation. This

49

tended to be associated with the self-rating of cooking
skills by homemakers, in which all homemakers rated them-
selves in the satisfactory area and 74 percent rated their
cooking skills as very satisfactory.

Distribution of responses for special food preparation
ranged from 2 percent "dislike very much" to 56 percent
"like very much."

After-meal cleanup was liked to some degree by 70 per-
cent of the homemakers, the largest proportion liking it

somewhat.

Socioeconomic position. Hollingshead's (1957) Two Factor
Index of Social Position was used to estimate the socio-
economic status of the household. This index is based on
the occupation and education of the head of household (before
occupational retirement). A score was determined for each
homemaker and each spouse, including deceased spouses of
homemakers who were widows or widowers. The highest posi-
tion score (lowest number in Hollingshead's index) for each
household was chosen for use in analysis.

In Hollingshead's index, the lowest scores have the
highest socioeconomic rating. Hollingshead has divided the
scores into groups so that individual scores within a range
of computed scores are ignored and treated as a unit.
Households with scores that fall into a given segment of the
range of scores assigned to a particular class are presumed

to belong to the class the index predicts for it.

50

Distribution of socioeconomic position is shown in
Table 5. Class 4 accounted for 44 percent of the households.
Most heads of household at Class 4 level typically had high
school educations (Table 6) and were employed in some type
of skilled work (Table 7). Classes 2, 3, and 5 were evenly
distributed, but Class 1 represented only 4 percent of the
sample. Most heads of household in Class 3 had at least
some college or training beyond high school and were in
managerial positions. Heads of household in Classes 1 and 2
were nearly all college graduates who were in professional
(Class 1), managerial or administrative (Class 2) occupa-
tions. Heads of household in Class 5 level usually had less
than high school educations and for the most part were in

semi-skilled jobs.

Hpglth of homemakep. About half of the homemakers rated
their general health as good, 30 percent as fair, and

22 percent as excellent. The majority of homemakers indi-
cated they had no difficulty doing their household work or
additional work due to existence of some physical or mental

:impairment of a family member.

ILevel of satisfaction with_fppd preparation facilities. Most
kiomemakers were satisfied with their food preparation facil-
ifities. Only 6 percent found them unsatisfactory, while

91+ percent rated their facilities as satisfactory (48 per-
Ctint as very satisfactory, 28 percent fairly satisfactory,

arid.18 percent satisfactory).

51

 

 

oca N H N a amumm
o: s m or c m 6H m sm-om
on m s so as s mm as manna
mm as s m: ca m am ma as-os
mm mm HH we om 0H N: «N monmw
hsom mcaon ampssz know muao: mmnssz pcoohom nonesz huomome
:opdo nomson :oPMo nomsos ow¢

owm mo Ham mo
enoopmm Psoohom

owm mo jam mo
Psoouom encouom

 

mcaosomso: Monsoe:ose

 

msaonomSo: hopsoaioSo

 

mcaocoosos Has

 

 

 

Amcaonmmso: omv
msoDSoz caonomsom mo nopszz was caonomSom an

mpmxmsosom mo mofinowoemo om¢ mo Soapsnwhvmmo .fi mgm<a

52.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N a N H amnmm

N a s N N a N am-om

N a N s NN as ms-ms

ca N SN NH sauce

ca N mm as s scumm

psmosom nopssz Psoohom gopssz psoonom popssz pnoohom Hopssz knowoPMo

cameos cams masses cams ems
mmfiogm .HmvaSmEoml

 

 

 

 

Amcaosomsos one

omsomm cam poxmsoSom .xom an mmHnoWovmo ow< Mo soapsamnyman .N mqm<a
o

53

 

 

o: cN SN NH :6. Nm osos sassmsnoso

N a N a osos easemenoss

c m N a N s osos cameos

a N NN as 6N me esosesmas
psoouom ponssz pfloopom 909832 ononom Hopssz make wzwmsom

 

mpaonomzo: pwnE081039

 

mvdonomson hopEoEImzo

 

msaoscmsos 4mm

 

 

 

Amcaosomsos omv
maze mCHmSOm he mcaonomSom mo Soapsnflnvmwn .m mnmsa

54

 

:H u
NN HH
an ma
:H n
NH w
d N

cm
6H
NH

OH

mN

N: HN
mm we
3N NH
N H

nose hho> mafia
oxflg

pNSSoEom oxflq
#853080m mxfiamwn
oxwamfin

nose hho> oxfiflmfin

 

Psoonom popssz
assmoao
Hmos-uopm<

 

ecoopom ponssz
Soapmhmmohm

cooe Heeocam

 

pcoonom hopssz

sowpmpmmohm
Hams smaswom

masses so fleece

 

 

 

Amcaosomsos omv

mofipw>fipo¢ :ofivmhmmohm room pom
Maegan mo Ho>on an whoxNEoEom mo SONPSDNMmen .: mnm<a

55

 

 

 

 

 

ma m mnnam AsmNSOHv m

:3 mm owns: a

ma w manmN m

mH m nmnma N

s N NH-HH AemosNNsV a

Psoosom monssz omsms oncom Ho>oa oeSoC0000aoom
mcaosomsos Has

 

 

 

 

mapmvm anoSoooofioom Ho mHoboA

AmpHoSomSOS omv
mo soapspfispmfin .m mnmse

56

cownhms.po>oc mnomeoSon 0399

NSN>NH pa: momsomm mousaosHm

 

 

 

 

 

NEHZQ
: N N H rho: opNSpmhu
0H m N 3 oonHoo Amman:
N a Na 0 Hoosom sNNs-emoa
NN «H :m NH mpmsumsm Hoonom swam
NH N ca m spasm seas op secs
on we SN NH cease spa op seN
d N d N opmnw new case mmog
ecoosmm sonssz psoonmm honssz Ho>ma Hmsowpmoscm
momsoamm msoxmsosom

 

 

Amcaosomsos omv

Ho>oa HmzofipmoSUm an momsomm cum whomeoEom Mo Cowpsnwhpmfin .w mummy

57‘

voHsHme um>os myoxmsoson 0390
smmHzomsose mocsaosHp
NGH>HH Poe momsomm moNSHosHm

 

 

 

 

NSHZo
HNGonmomohm
N H Momma was c>Hpsooxm
0N 0H 0H m Hmsonmowosm cam ecoEowmsmz
mmmSHmsn
0H m a N HHNEM\Ho£C0mpoA\.cHSp¢
w d on mH soxnos HNoHsnooP\HmoHsoHo
SN NH 3 N soxnos assess coHHme
om mH om mN Horses cmHHmeaHSNmp
N H N H noxpos UNHHHMmED
psoopmm Hopssz Pamosmm Honssz Ho>oH HNGOHHNQSOoo
newcommm mamxmeosom

 

 

 

AmcHosomsos omv

Ho>oA HNCoHPNQSOOO an momsomm cam whoxmsosom Mo COHpanhvan .5 mgm<a

58
Characteristics and Content of the Work
Descriptive analysis of time used for food prepara—
tion as well as all household production, of food prepara-
tion work space and equipment, and of numbers and types of
meals prepared is presented in this section. Tables are

presented on pages 64 through 72.

Time used for all household production. The total time used
on all household work in one day is the sum of the time
spent on the separate activities that make up household
work. These activities have been classified into 13 spe-
cific kinds of work that, when grouped, constitute five

major categories of activities listed below.

 

Group categories Individual activities
All food preparation Regular meal preparation

Special food preparation
After-meal cleanup

All house care Regular house care
Special house care
Yard and car care

All clothing care Washing

I roning

Special clothing care
All family care Physical care

Nonphysical care
Marketing and Marketing and shopping

Management Management and record
keeping

Certain variables, such as day of the week and unus-
ual conditions on record days, could affect the amount of
time used in these activities. Representation of days of

the week is shown in Table 8. Total time of sample

59
homemakers represented averages of time use for each of the
seven days of the week. Unusual conditions affecting the
household could produce atypical patterns of household work.
Generally, the occurrence of unusual conditions of any kind
was low in the sample, except for health conditions: about
one fourth reported diabetes, coronary problems, or handi-
caps. Unusual family situations reported included family
visitors and guests, and one couple who were married the
week before the interview. The worst blizzard in Lansing
history was cited as an unusual weather condition.‘Dy three
households.

The average daily amount of time used on all house-
hold production by all homemakers (47 women, 3 men) was
247 minutes: for spouses (2 women, 23 men) the total was
49 minutes (Table 9).

All food preparation received 44 percent of the total
time of homemakers for household work, more than any other
grouping of activities. Regular meal preparation time was
greater than any other individual activity. Toward all food
preparation spouses contributed 38 percent of their total
time in household production, with regular meal preparation
and after-meal cleanup receiving about equal shares.

All house care expended about one fourth of the daily
time for household work: regular house care used the largest
proportion of time. Spouses spent about 8 minutes a day in

all house care, mostly in care of yard and car.

60

All clothing care was definitely work done by the
homemaker. It accounted for 20 percent of his or her daily
time and less than 1 percent of the spouse's time. In spe-
cial care of clothing and linens, time use included sewing,
knitting, and other clothing construction activities.

All family care included care of pets as well as
family members. Homemakers averaged 11 minutes and spouses
about 6 minutes per day in this category. A large part of
this time was used in feeding, walking, and taking pets to
veterinarians.

Marketing and management accounted for 23 minutes of
the homemaker's daily average time use, and about half that
amount of time for spouses.

The above findings affirm Hypothesis 8: time use in
food preparation is greater than time use for any other

household work activity.

Fgod preparation work space and equipment. Certain physical
characteristics were selected as most likely to describe the
typical household food preparation environment. These

included availability of adequate work and storage space and

availability and use of food preparation equipment.

Workvspace and storage space. Work spaces are a major part

of the components needed to accomplish food preparation

tasks. The design of the work place in terms of the require-
ments of the task and of the worker influences the ease with

which the task is accomplished. Data were gathered on the

61

adequacy of storage (wall and base cabinets) and counter
space in terms of location near major work centers and the
amount of storage and counter space available.

All homemakers in the sample had at least 36 inches
and about eight out of ten had 72 inches of counter space.
Nearly all homemakers had work space at the right and left
of the sink. About three fourths of the households had
counter Space by both the range and oven, and about half
had work space adjacent to the latch side of the refrig-
erator (Table 10).

Almost all homemakers had 72 inches or more of wall
and base cabinet frontage for kitchen storage space
(Table 11). All had storage space by the sink, 82 percent
beside the range, and 74 percent along side the refrig-
erator.

Of the homemakers interviewed, 26 percent indicated
that there was something about their kitchens that made meal
preparation or cleaning up difficult for them. The most
common response was the small size of the kitchen, with
difficult access to storage space and difficulty in cleaning

the next two most common complaints.

Equipment owned. The appliances on which data were gathered
have been on the market for a relatively long time and are
commonly found in households.

All homemakers had electric fry pans, pressure cook-
ers, electric mixers, ovens, broilers and vacuum cleaners.

Most households had carpet sweepers, brooms, and freezers or

62
freezer units. About 85 percent had kitchen exhaust fans
and garbage disposers or indoor incinerators, with about
30 percent owning dishwashers (Table 12).

Of the homemakers, 34 percent indicated that there
was an appliance that they did not own, but would like to
own, that would ease their food preparation work. Microwave
ovens (35 percent) and food processors or blenders (18 per-

cent) were the most frequently mentioned appliances.

Use of selectedgkitchen equipment. On record days over half
of the homemakers used garbage disposers or indoor incinera-
tors, and 46 percent used ovens (Table 13).

During the previous seven days, ovens (94 percent)
and freezers (94 percent) received the most use, followed by

disposers (66 percent) and brooms (50 percent) (Table 13).

Types of meals. Meals served in any household vary in com-
plexity. Walker (1955) defined five categories of meal

types by number of operations from least complex (Type 1) to
most complex (Type 5). Very simple meals that require almost
no preparation are all in Type 1. Meals that require easy
cooking operations, such as heating and toasting, are

Type 2. More complex meals (Types 3, 4, and 5) involve both
cooking and noncooking operations. Only meals prepared by

the homemaker were included in the analysis.

Number ang types of all meals. An average of three meals per

record day was prepared by the sample, providing data for

300 meals of which 96 percent were served to one or two

63

persons. 0f the meals, 21 percent were eaten away from home
or not at all, the majority of these were lunches provided
by nutrition programs. About one fourth of the homemakers
preferred eating out to eating at home, most frequently for
companionship and pleasure (Table 14).

About one third of the possible 300 meals prepared
were Type 2; one third were Type 1. Types 3, 4, and 5 each
represented about 7 percent of the possible meals

(Table 15).

Number and types of breakfasts. lunches, and dinners. The
most common types of breakfast served were Type 2 (55 per-
cent) and Type 1 (44 percent). One-member households pre-
pared about one fourth more Type 1 breakfasts and about one
fourth less Type 2 breakfasts (Table 16) than two-member
households.

Lunches prepared at home on the record days were most
frequently Type 2. Two-member households prepared twice as
many Type 1 meals as one-member households.

Dinners are generally more complex than other meals.
Type 1, however, ranked highest in this sample as the type
of dinner prepared (26 percent). Type 2 and Type 5 each
accounted for 20 percent of the total and Types 3 and 4
combined to represent 24 percent. Two-member households
prepared two and one-half times as many Type 5 meals as

one-member households.

64

 

 

N H s smcsspcm
N m N sceHsm
HH 5 NH zmumssne
N m NH secmoscos
MH mH NN zmvmose
s a HH sconce
m NH NH ascssm
mpHonomsoa mpaogomzos msaonomsos News onp mo mama
Monso81o39 Hon86810:0 HH<

 

 

 

 

 

Hesse ooH .meHosomeor omv
goes one No News esooom as mcHosomsom Ho soHeanaemHa .N NHNNN

65

 

 

 

 

00H m: 00H mdN apes oHosomso: HH<

NH N m u mchoox choooh saw psoSowmsms

NH N N NH msHamonm Ho msHpomez

N H N : hHHSmm Ho onmo Hosea

oH N n s hHHSNM mo memo HNonhnm
Ho. on. NH mm wzHAHOHo Mo mama HmHoon
H N NsHsoaH

no. mo. n m oSHzomE hp wanmmz
0H m H m nmo Nam Nada Ho osmo

N s 5 NH oumo omso: HmHoomm

: N NH Nm ommo mason HNHSNom

NH m NH um mszmoHo HmoSIHoPm<

m a N NH :oHpmHmmopQ sock HmHoomm

:H m mN mm COHpmHmmohm Hams Hmstom
encouom mopscHs Psoosom mopssHs mmHPH>HPo<

owmuo>< owmno><
omsogm HNHNSNEom

 

 

 

 

osHs sacs eHosomsom Hcpoa sH

HmcHosomsos omv
scam mo mmmPSNoHom Nam

mcHeHsHeoN secs eHosomsom soopaHss ace osHs sHHon omcaoea .m mHmNs

66

 

H35 in

Nt\\OO\C’\

ON

HmH
H

N (\de

NH

0N

Hmv-l
H

NQDCDMV)

NH

MN

max:
H

NO\CDHO\

Hm

W1

 

mvHonomSNn Ho amped:

 

0N

maxm
H

NO\<I)OL\

nN

W.

NN

N0\l\£\\0 020

N

N-ITHH‘)‘
H

3N

mm:
H

NO\CDNO\

m.

3N

ONO-3'
H

hhopomm
:prmm hHo>

Shopowm
:mHme HHHHmm
hhovomMmvam
hhovommepmmSD

moHPHHHomH
onPommmemm

m mmmHo

m mmmHo

mmmHo

N oomHo

H mocHo
HMMNH

mHsmmmmmmHmmw

 

 

osos sHHsmH-oso
mac: hHHEmmloze
080: oHHnoS
PamSPHmQN
mmHHImmHmmdm

 

Hopwho
IprmoH
ouHmom

Cm>0
ochom

 

 

owsms xch mo
ochoN eHoH es esNHe HN

stm Ho

oommm
NNPQSoo

:NB

 

 

woman
Hops5oo

st

hhow
nopmo
SH .02

 

 

 

oHpmHHm>¢moomnm-chz

UHosomSom

 

 

AmuHonomson omv
moHpmHHm> pmpooHom an macropHM 2H oHanHm>< oommm ago: .oH mHmNB

67

 

ON

Nmo
H

:N

no»:
r:

NO\CDNO\

m

(“fit-IN
H

0N

NBN
H

NGDUDGDW

N

(”\de
H

muHonomsos

3N

v40¥j
e:

NOQHCD

M

(“fit-{O
H

Ho Hopes:

:N

v4oxd
H

NCDCDHW

N

de—lm
v-l

3N

no»:
r:

hhopomm
:memm hhm>

muopomm
:memm NHHHmm
hpovommmHPmm
hhopomMNHPmmSD

moHeHHHomw
g

m mmcHo

mmmHo

m mmmHo

N mmsHo

H mmcHo
HMMMH

oHEonoooOHoom

osos SHHsmenoso
osos aHHsseuoss
osos oHHpos
PSoSPHmm<
mmsmlmmHmmmm

 

 

 

HopmnomHnmoH
oNHm
NCOHN

 

stm
ouHm
NQoHN

omsmh
opHmom

 

 

Poanmo
ommp
:NN.

 

pocHnmo

HHss
o—NN.

 

hhowopmo
2H
Hopssz

 

 

oHanHm>< moomaw Damnopm

pHozomsom

 

 

HmcHosomsos omv
mchsHem> eoeooHoN so msosoeHs sH oHccHHe>< comam emceopm .HH NANNB

68

 

NH

NL\\OCDV\

HH

N\O:)'N:—i

3N

:H

NN

O\

NH

OH

 

mvHonomson Ho Aeneas

 

:N

sH

NN

ON

3N

:H

NN

O\CD

3N

SH

NN

Gd)

hpopomm
:memm hpo>

zhovomm
:mHPmm hHHHmm

ShopommePmm
hhopoNMmemmSD

 

moHpHHHocH

soHHmmHmHHmw
N mmNHo
: mmmHo
N mmsHo
N mdeO

H mmoHo
AMMNH
OHEosoooOHoom

 

 

Homom
:mHn

 

Hosmms
-smHn

 

Hoxooo
ohfimmonm

9mm
Pmsmnxm

smahhH
OHHpoon

 

HHS: Ho
HoNoohm

 

knowopmo
:H Honssz

 

 

oHanHm>< “CosmMSUM

mcHonomsom

 

 

HmcHosomsos omv

moHpmHHm> NopooHom hp

ascmmHo HNoSIHoPMN USN COHpmhmmon doom pom oHpmHHm>¢ HmoemHzUm .NH mHm<a

69

 

 

do mm pHcs HoNooHH Ho Houoohm
NN NH Honmmsann
3N HH HoHHoum
as N: sc>o
m: 3H HoUSoHp\HoxHE OHHPoon
NH N Hoxooo whammopm
om oH NHUNHHM\SNQNHM OHHpoon
NN 0N HopmnocHosH\uomommHu owmnnmu
w: HN CNN pmsmnxo GonopHm
oN mm sonopHx sH Eoopm
N: :H sonoPHM SH HosmoHo SSSom>
:N m CocoPHx CH homooSm pomhmo
Paoohom Paoohom pcoemHsvm
mamc so>om m50H>onm mhmw psooop so

 

 

 

moHosommaN HHN

 

 

Amhmp choose ooH .mNHonomSon ONV

mhmn So>om m50H>on may mcHHSQ cam mhmm whooom onv no
pSoEmszm smnopHx pmpooHom wsHmD mUHonomsom Ho mwmpsmonom .NH mHm<a

7O

 

 

 

2m NH NN HH NN NN muommon Honvo

Nm NH NN NH 35 um mcHHo>mmp Ho msHmmonm pso
mac: Hm wchmo

sH N sH N NN SH oe poo NsHeoo somcaa
sapwosm

NN NH N: HN Nu mm GOHPHHPSQ mzoNHpHo HoHnom
mNSoHHm saw

23 NN N: HN NN m: NHHSNH Scum m:0HPmPH>QH

Psooaom Honssz psoosmm Honssz pcoohom Ampedz myopomm

mcHocomso: mNHoQNNSon mNHosomso:
HopSoEIoss Hopeweloso HH<

 

 

 

 

HmcHosomso: ONV
meom Pm NQHPmm Ho #30 NSvam osHehovmn pmna myopomm Ho COHpsthpmHn .NH mgm<s

71

 

Hid

NCD\O 3N

O\O:}' HN

HH

NO\<"\€'\\O {\-

ONQMNH

Ham

\ooxmcur H

NH

make
make
make
make
make
msoz
HummHm

make
mafia
maze
oaks
make
mfioz
gamma

.Hoqruruw

escaruruw

N case

N case

H case
ocoz
Hmcwmmosm

 

 

mN op NN

 

:N Op 9N

an op Nu

 

an op on

 

NN op NN

 

 

 

Homeosom mo mm¢

momhp Hams

 

 

Anzac chooon ooH .mNHOQNNSon ONV
Hoxmsosom mo om¢ hp mama chooom no Uo>Hom

mnmcan USN .monocsq .mpmmmxmonm mo momma .NH mHm<a

72

 

(130311303
HH

H

H
flown?! N
N H

N

C!)
H
dd‘ON

mNHoSNNSoc mo Henssc

ozoz
30:39

N sea.

N case

H 25.
ozoz
pmNHMNon

 

 

mcHocomson mNHoSNNSOS
Hopewelosa Monso51mso

 

 

mogp Nos

 

 

AmNHonomso: ONV
mHonsms NHonmmsom mo Honszz an mNNn NHoooN so Nm>pom

mumssHm USN .mocossn .ummeNon no momma .NH MHm<a

73
INFERENTIAL STATISTICAL ANALYSIS BY HYPOTHESES

Inferential statistical analysis is presented by
hypotheses. All tables pertinent to inferential analysis
are presented at the end of this section, pages 79 to 86.

The Kendall Tau rank correlation statistic, a non-
parametric measure of association, was used to identify the
variable or variables most closely related to the daily time
Spent on food preparation activities by homemakers. The
Kendall Tau statistic indicates whether an association
exists between variables: it does not necessarily imply
causation of the relationship. The measure of association
does not show how great the increase or decrease in time is,
but indicates the general "monotonicity" of the underlying
relationship between the variables (Hayes, 1973).

All Kendall Tau values reported were significant at
the .05 level. Correlation coefficients were determined for
all the major variables: however, only significant relation-
ships are reported and discussed.

Time spent was ranked by the average of the minutes
per day of the record and recall days. The times used in
analysis and shown in tabular form have truncate values
determined by an arithmetical procedure that computes the
nearest whole number; in this analysis that number is 10,
the unit of measurement used in the data collection. As an
example of its use, the function of the truncate value would
raise a case value for a household work category of 47 min-

utes to 50 minutes, and lower a case value of 43 minutes

74

to 40 minutes. The overall final averages vary little from
the original figures, while the use of truncate values
enables thesize and number of contingency tables generated
by the computer to be reduced to more meaningful sizes with-
out impeding the meaning of the research.

The ordering of the ranking of the variables is dis-
cussed in the chapter on procedure. To clarify the inter-
pretations of the correlation coefficients, the meaning of
the correlation signs for the major variables in relation to
time use in food preparation activities is as follows.

Variable Correlation Meaning

Age of homemaker A positive correlation indi-
cates an increase in time use
as the age of the homemaker
increases.

Housing type A positive correlation signi-
fies an increase in time use
from apartments to one-famlly

homes.
Number of house- A positive correlation indi-
hold members cates an increase in time use

as the number of household
members increases.

Level of liking A positive correlation signi-
for food prep- fies an increase in use of
aration activ- time as the level of liking
ties for food preparation activi—

ties increases.

Socioeconomic A positive correlation indi-
level cates an increase in use of
time as the socioeconomic
level decreases. (An increase
in time use as level declines
as classes are ranked from
highest to lowest.)

Satisfaction with A positive correlation indi-
facilities cates an increase in use of
time as the homemaker's level
of satisfaction with food
preparation facilities in—
creases.

75

Partial rank correlations for independent variables
determined the strength of the relationships between two
variables. Only significant relationships are reported
and discussed.

Hypothesis 1: Time use in food preparation increases as the
age of the homemaker increases
(Tables 17, 18).

Although statistically significant, correlation of
time use in all food preparation with age of homemaker was
very weak (.01). Correlations with time use in regular meal
preparation (.07) and after-meal cleanup (.05) were also
weak.

Two interrelational effects were evident between age
and the other variables: a weak correlation (.07) was ob-
served with level of satisfaction with physical health in all
food preparation, and a relatively moderate correlation was
evident between age and physical health (.57) with time used
for after—meal cleanup.

Actual daily average times did give empirical evidence
of a slight increase in time use for all food preparation as
age increased up to age 84, but was not consistently evident
for the other categories of food preparation.

Hypothesis 2: Time use in food preparation increases as the
complexity of housing type increases
(Tables 17, 19).

Housing type, while not strongly correlated, had the

highest correlation of all the variables with time used for

all work related to food preparation activities (.24) and

76
particularly after-meal cleanup (.34). It was the second
highest correlation in regular meal preparation (.20) and
special food preparation (.16).

The relationship between housing type and number of
household members in time used for all food preparation (.17)
remained low when other variables were held constant. The
effects of housing type on time use for after-meal cleanup
were weakly interrelated with those of number of household
members (.34).

Times given in tabular form (Table 19) increase
dramatically from apartments to one-family homes, particu-
larly in two-member households. Because of the use of
truncate values, low time use, and low respondent number,
the average minutes per day for two-family homes is not
significant enough to appear.

Hyppthegjsj: Time use in food preparation increases as
the number of household members increases
(Tables 17, 20).

Number of household members correlated weakly with
time used for food preparation activities (all food prepara-
tion, .10; regular meal preparation, .09: after-meal cleanup,
.14: and special food preparation, .07). More time was
Spent on these activities in two-member households.

The relationship between number of household members
and liking for food preparation activities with time use for
all food preparation, regular meal preparation, and after-
meal cleanup remained weak when other variables were held

constant. Relatively stronger partial correlations were

77
evident between housing types (.34) and physical health (.35)

with number of household members.

Hypothesis 4: Time use in food preparation increases as the
homemaker's level of likin for food pre ara-
tion activities increases Tables 17, 21 .

The correlation values for level of liking for food
preparation activities were very low (all food preparation,
.06; regular meal preparation, .08: after-meal cleanup, .09;
and not statistically significant for Special food prepara-
tion).

There were low correlation interrelationships between
level of liking and number of household members, and level
of liking and physical health.

While time use did not increase consistently, more
time was used in food preparation activities by homemakers
who indicated they liked the activities. The largest amount
of daily average time used (70 minutes) was by homemakers in
two-member households who somewhat disliked after-meal
cleanup.

Hypothesis 5: Time use in food preparation increases as the
socioeconomic level of the homemaker decreases
(Tables 17, 22).

Socioeconomic level had a very weak correlation with
all food preparation activities (all food preparation, .04:
regular meal preparation, .03; after-meal cleanup, .04:
special food preparation, not statistically significant).
The positive relationship indicated that a little more time
(a few minutes per day) was used by homemakers at lower

socioeconomic levels (higher scores on the Hollingshead

78

index). Socioeconomic level interrelated very weakly (.02)

with house type.

Hypothesis 6: Time use in food preparation increases as
the homemaker's level of satisfaction with
physical health increases (Tables 17, 23).

While low, physical health had the second highest
correlation with all food preparation activities (.21), the
highest for regular meal preparation (.22) and special food
preparation (.27), and third highest for after-meal clean-
up (.14). The interrelational effects, except for age (.57),
were weak.

Two-member households showed the greatest time in-
crease as level of satisfaction with physical health
increased.

Hypothesisz: Time use in food preparation increases as
the homemaker's level of satisfaction with
food preparation facilities increases
(Tables 17, 24).

Level of satisfaction with food preparation facilities
correlated weakly with after-meal cleanup (.24). In this
activity category, partial correlation was similar to number
of household members (.23), and a low interrelational effect
was shown with house type (.10).

A very low correlation value was determined for satis-
faction with facilities and time used for all food prepara-
tion (.02): there was no statistical significance for special
food preparation: and regular meal preparation was negatively

correlated (-.17).

'79

Ho>oH No. on» pN pSNonHSmHm oSN mHSNp NHSp SH NSHHNNSSN mo=HN> HH<N

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN. anme
No. vHocomso: SH Sonssz
NH. camp NSHmsom
Ho. om<
SoHpNSN mp 600% HNHom m

moHpHHHon
NN. cH. sN. seHs soHeochHesN
No. sH. seHcos Hmonssa
so. Hm>oH OHSoSooNOHoom
No. moHHH>Heos mom NsHHHH
no. HH. SH. cHocomsoc SH Sonssz
an. m. can» mSHmzo:
NN. o. . ou<
:SNmHo HNNSIHNPNN

moHvHHHon
NH.: SPHB SoHvommmHva
NN.. seHcos HsonNsa
mo. Ho>oH OHSOSoomoHoom
NH. No. moHeH>Heos com NsHHHH
No. No. cHocomsoS SH Sonssz
ON. Nah» wSHmSom

No.

moHpHHHon
No. Ssz SOHPonmHva
NN. HN. ceHses HoHomssa
No. so. Ho>mH OHEoSOONOHoom
No. mmeH>HpoN pom NSHHHH
NH. NH. 0H. uHonomsoS SH Hones:
NH. :N. oak» mSHmsoz
No. Ho. oN<
SoHpNHN NS Noam HH<
NNHPHHHoNH :pHNmS How uHonomsoS camp mw< 2N9 .SH msHe
SPHB HNOHthm wSHxHH SH Sonazz mmzom HHNNSNMN m.uoxNEmaom

soHeosHmHesN

 

 

 

 

HsoHosomsos omv
moHSNHHN> USN mSoxNSosom Mo

oeHa SOHpNSNmmSm Noom pom mPSoHonmwoo SOHPNHNHHOU xSNm HNHpHNm USN MSNm .NH mnm<e

80

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

OH m H mmlmw
ON oH N SNnoN
NH SN NN HH NNINN
NH N NH SN-6N
SN N SH HN N -N
SoHpNSNSmS Uoom HNHow m
ON ON H NNINN
6N NN SN N SNuoN
NS NN NN HH NNINN
NN 0N NN NH
NS NH NN HN
0N NH H
NNH NN NN N
NN oS HN HH
H N m. 2 NH...
HN :
d d CONPNHNQmHQ. HNmE HN.—”.5 mm
NNH NN NNH N SNnoN
NNH HoH NHH HH NNINN
HoH NN NN NH SNuoN
NNH NN NN HN NNnmm
COHPNHNQNHQ. U00.“ Hg
NNU Hog mopSSHE omNSo>N
mUHOSmmzoS mUHoSmmSOS mUHoSomSoS mUHoSmmSoS NNN
SmSSmsnoze SNSENE:NS0 HHN mo SNSESZ
SNSNSNEom No NSHB HHHHHMMN

 

 

HmpHoscmsos oNv

mSmSSmE UHOSomSom mo Sonssz USN omN NS mSmMNEmEom No NEHB SoHPNSNmoSm Uoom .NH mnm<e

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH NH NH NN macs NHHsNH-oso
H macs NHHssmuose
ON ON m macs cHHpos
N S H
NS NN NN NN osos NHHsRH-oso
H oSos NHHsmmuosH
ON ON ON m mac: oHHSoS
0N NN NN H \IvSNSSHNQN
SSSNmHo HNNEISNPNN
NN oS NN NN macs NHHsNH-cso
H macs NHHsNH-oss
NN o: m: m mSoS oHHpoE
0: Nm Nm H PSNSPSNQN
SoHPNSN on HNcs SNHS om
NNH NNH NHH Nm mEoS NHHSNNINSO
H macs NHHsNHIosH
NN NNH NN S mac: oHHSoE
0N NN NN NH pSoSPSNS<
SOHpNSN NS UooN HHN
NNU Son mmpSSHE omNHo>N
mUHoSmmSOS mUHoSmmsoS mUHOSomson mUHoSmmsoS camp mmSo:
Homemsnose SmSSmSINSo .HH¢ mo Smnssz
SmeSNSom mo NSHB HPH>HP0<

 

 

HmoHoSomsog NNV

mmhe NSHmsom NS mSmeeoEom No oeHe SoHpNSNmmSm Uoom .NH mHm<B

82

 

 

NH NH SH SOHPNSNSNSQ Uoom HNHoomm
o: NN Sm SSSNmHo HNNSISNPNN
NN NS NN SOHPNSNSNSS HNNE SNHSNom
NNH NN NNH SOHpNSwaSS UooN HHN
NNU Son NNPSSHE owNSm>N
mUHoSNNSoS mUHoSomSoS mUHonmmSOS NPH>Hpo<
Swpsm81osa SoSEoEINSo HH<

 

 

 

 

 

HmeHoscmsos ONV

mnmnsms UHoSwmsom No Sepssz NS
mSNxNEmsom mo msHa SoHPNSNQmSm Uoom .ON mgm<s

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HH N N aces So.» 8H3
NH NN Nm NN oxHH
NN N SH N pcsscesm cxHH
SoHPNSNSmSS UodHIHMHmmmW
NN SH N Sons hho> mxHH
Nm Nm Nm HH NHHH
mm NN Sm NH pNSBmEom oxHH
0N NN NW N HNSSNSON mxHHmHn
SN S N N 8:38
ON 0H NH N Sons NSN> NSHHNHQ
mmmMMHmIHNoEISmP%¢
ON OS 3 HN rose NS? oHHH
0N 0S 0N NH NSHH
NN NS NN NH 5:328 33
ON NH H r) 3:38
SoHHNSNSoSS HNoE SNHSNNN
oN NN 0N Sosa Nho> oxHH
NNH NNH NNH mxHH
SNH NN SoH PNSSmEom oxHH
NNH NN NS PNSSmEom NHHHNHQ
SN oS NN oHHHmHQ
0N 0H NH Sosa NSN> mxHHmHQ
SoHPNSNSmSS Uoom HH<
NNU pom mmPSSHE owNSm>N

mUHOSNNSOS mUHoSom50S mUHOSmmSoS mUHoSmwSoS Ho>oH

Sm98051039 Smnso81oSo HHd No Smpssz
waNsoeom mo osHe HHHMHMNN

 

 

AmUHoSmmsos ONV
moHpH>Hpo< SoHvNSNSmSm Uoom Son

NSHSHH No Hm>oH NS mSostmSom mo NSHB SoHPNSNmon Uoom .HN mamNB

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N S N N mmmHo
NN 0N MN NN M mmNMo
oH N mmN 0
6H NH HH N N mmsHo
0N oH N H mmNHo
SOHPNSNNMdewoom HNHomSm
oN 6S NN N N mmmHo
SS NN Nm NN m mmNHo
0N NH NH N mmNHo
NN NN SS N N mmmHo
on on on N H mmNHo
SSNmHo HNmSISmpm<
NN NN NN N N mmNHo
NN oS NN NN m mmeHo
oS mS NS N mmNHo
NN oS NN N N mmNHo
6N NS NS N H mmcHo
SoHpNSNSoSS HNmS.SNHSNNm
SN mm SN N N mmNHo
NSH NN NHH NN m mmNHo
0N NN NN N mmNHo
NSH Na HH N N mmNHo
ooH NN N N H mmNHo
SoHpNSNamSS Uoom HH<
NNU Hog moPSSHs mwNSo>N

mUHOScmSoS mUHoSNNSOS mUHonmmSoS mUHoSNNSOS mmNHo

SNSSNSIose SmSSmSINSo HHN mo Smpssz
Smesmsom mo NEHB HMHMNMMN

 

 

HmcHosomsos NNV

mommNHo SoHpHmom HNHoom NS NSNSNEmEom mo NEHB SOHPNSNamSm Uoom .NN mHm<e

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooH N SN HH PSoHHooxm
NH NN ON SN U000
m N NH SHNm
Soom
SOHPNSNSNSS mock HNHommm
ON on OS HH PSoHHmoxm
NM NN Nm SN U000
on NN mm NH SHNm
Soom
SMSNoHo HNmSISmPNN
NN NS HN HH pSoHHmoxm
MN Nm ON SN U000
ON SS NS NH SHNm
Soom
SoHPNSNmNSS HNoS_SNHSmom
NSN NN NNH HH PSNHHooxm
NHH OO NOH SN U00O
mm MN NN NH SHNm
Soom
SOHPNSNNMSS Uoowafid<
NNU Smm mmPSSHE NNNSN>N

mUHoSmmSOS mUHOSmmsoS mUHOSmmSoS UHoSmw50S Hm>oH

SNSSNSIose SNSSNSINSO HH< No Sopssz
SmeSNSom No osHe HPH>HPo<

 

 

HmcHocmmsos ONO

SPHNmm HNonNSm No Ho>mH NS mSmeSmSom No msHe SOHPNSNSmSm Uoom .NN mHNSB

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m N Sm NhovommmHPMm Nym>
0S m mm SH NhopommmeMm NHpHmm
om ow NN m NHopoMMmewm

N hhopowmmHPMmCD
COHNNMM my doom HmHom m
mS mm mm SN Nhopowmmemm hpm>
NS Nm Nm SH NpopommmHPMm thHmm
Hm NN mm m muopommmemm
NN NH N NMOPowmmvamub
aszmeo HamEunum¢
0N NS NS SN NhopomMmHNMm th>
NN oH NS SH NhopommmHPMm mHnme
ow NS MN m hhovomeHPmm
0N Nm m hhopommmemmzb
:OHPmuwamha Hams Madmmmm
mm Hm mm Sm myopommmemm mhm>
NNH 0S HoH SH zhopoNMmeMm mHgHmm
HSH ONH NSH m hhopommmemm
Nm mS m muopommmHPwmcb
haw pwm mmpscHe mwMMm>m
mcHonmmso: mcHonmmso: mUHonmmsoc mUHosmmso: Hm>mg
meEwsnoze hmpsmsumco HH¢ mo amnesz
pdeSmEom mo msHe .HaH>HHw¢

 

 

AmUHonmmson omv
mmeHHHomm zOHpmpmnmum coon sPHz

90HpomMmHPwm mo Hm>mH Np mhmmemEOS mo mEHB GOHPmHmmmhm coom .SN mnm<e

87
DISCUSSION

Discussion is presented in three sections: (1) amount
of time used, (2) characteristics and content of the work,

and (3) findings related to the hypotheses.

Amount of Time Used

All food preparation was comprised of three activi—
ties, two of which, regular meal preparation and after-meal
cleanup, were time consuming and regularly performed. Spe-
cial food preparation, the third activity, was less frequent-
ly performed and of minor importance (84 percent of the re-
spondents used no time in this category). The proportions
of total food preparation time spent on these activities
were: regular meal preparation, 53 percent; after-meal
cleanup, 34 percent; and special food preparation, 13 per-
cent. All food preparation time use accounted for 45 per-
cent of the daily total for all household production.

These findings concur with those of studies concerned
with time use and household work conducted in the past. Al-
though, with the exception of one, none of the studies con-
cerned themselves exclusively with household work done by
men and women age 65 and older, the findings are very simi-
lar. As far back as 1929 Wilson found that homemakers were
using #7 percent of their household work time in food prepar-
ation activities. Through the years, Wasson (1930), Warren
(19#O), Muse (1946), Wiegand (1953). Walker (1955). and
Walker and Woods (1976) all found homemakers to be using

88
nearly half their household work time in food preparation
activities. Beyer and Woods (1962) reported the only study
that included information on time use in food preparation
by older men and women. Given that their food preparation
time amounts included time for eating, their findings
(180 minutes per day) are comparable with those of this
study (110 minutes per day).

Viewing the findings from the perspective of the fam-
ily life cycle, it would be expected that older families in
the last stage of the cycle would use less time for food
preparation activities. Comparing the information available
from past studies for families in all stages of the life
cycle, this expectation has not materialized; older people
are using about the same proportion of time.

The effect of the distribution of time between home-
maker and spouse in two-member households was that the 25
spouses contributed 38 percent of their total time in house-
hold production to food preparation (19 minutes per day).

In about half of these households, homemakers did all the
household work by themselves without any assistance from
their spouses.

Many of the respondents participating in this study
regularly attended the community nutrition programs avail-
able to them. Average attendance was about once a week at
noon. Large meals, nutritionally complete, were served that
could have influenced the type of dinner meal and time

Spent to prepare it by the homemaker in the evening. Also,

89
there were six respondents who ate only one meal per day
who occasionally participated in the program. And some who
came to the programs ate little of what was offered because
of dietary restrictions or food preferences and therefore

prepared their normal evening meal.

Characteristics and Content of the Work

Among the reasons for high expenditure of time in
regular meal preparation and after-meal cleanup is that
these are highly repetitive and stable activities, a charac-
teristic around which Nelson (1963) constructed and developed
her activity pattern approach for Costa Rican homemakers.

In other studies, also, regular meal preparation and after-
meal cleanup are the most time-consuming and consistently
performed household work activities.

Warren, in a personal interview, brought to the atten-
tion of this investigator some other factors that could in-
fluence the content of the work. She cited the possible
effects of (1) the homemaker's standards for food prepara-
tion activities and after-meal cleanup; (2) the effect of
the affective component of the work (for example, the gour-
met cook homemaker for whom food preparation is a creative
past-time compared with the reluctant homemaker for whom
food preparation work is a necessary evil): (3) the quality
of the work, whether it is well or poorly done; and (4) the
effect of fast food businesses and convenience foods on food
preparation time use. Some support was found in this study

for the last effect mentioned by Warren: 35 percent of the

9O
homemakers expressing desire for some appliance they did not
own, wished for a microwave oven.

Physical characteristics of older men and women could
hamper the normal functions of all food preparation. If the
physical design of the food preparation space and facilities
does not accomodate these characteristics, food preparation
activities could become unpleasant, tedious, and even danger-
ous. None of the respondents lived in housing designed for
older people. Physical characteristics of the sample could
account for some of the complaints about the small size of
kitchens, about the difficulty of access to storage space,
and about the difficulty of cleaning the kitchens. These
complaints could influence the amount of time Spent in food
preparation. Cowles and Dietz (1956) identified the charac-
ter of the kitchen as having such an effect.

Warren (1938) found that the number of persons served
meals was more closely related to time spent on food prepara-
tion than were other variables: two-member households in
this study spent more time in food preparation than one-
member households.

Walker (1959) found that the type of meal prepared
was the most important predictor of time use: two-member
households in this study prepared more meals that were of

higher complexity.

91
Findings Related to Hypotheses

The findings supported all the hypotheses, however,
two, house type and health of homemaker, while weak, were
more strongly supported than the others.

Hypothesis 1: Time use in food preparation increases as
the age of the homemaker increases.

Time use in food preparation did increase as the age
of the homemaker increased. Correlational support for this
hypothesis was very weak. A number of factors could account
for this, but the most universal one is the fact that the
aging segment of the population is the most heterogeneous
of all segments. There is more physical and mental disparity
in this age group than any other, so that chronological age
may not be the best predictor of time use.

Hypothesis 2: Time use in food preparation increases as
the complexity of housing type increases.

Housing type had a higher correlation than all other
variables with time used for all work related to food prepar-
ation (.24).

Walker and Woods (1976) found some relationship be-
tween house type and food preparation time, and attributed
the effect to number of children or type of family as deter-
minants of the type of housing chosen. 0f the 13 respondents
in this study who lived in apartments, 11 represented one-
member households: and of the 32 respondents living in one-
family homes, 24 were two-member households. As in the

Walker and Woods study, the effect of house type on food

92
preparation time may be at least partially attributable
to number of household members.
Hypothesis 3: Time use in food preparation increases as
the number of household members increases.

Number of household members showed some correlation
with time use for food preparation activities. Empirically,
two-member households did use more time for food preparation,
but statistically the hypothesis was not stongly supported.
Variation in number of household members was too slight to
produce a significant difference.

Spouses in two-member households gave little support
to homemakers in sharing food preparation work. Some pos-
sible reasons for this observation may be lack of skill,
sex-role socialization, and physical or mental disability.
Hypothesis 4: Time use in food preparation increases as the

homemaker's level of liking for food prepara-
tion increases.

Correlations for level of liking for food preparation
activities were very low.

Several studies have been conducted in the past that
examined the relationship between the affective component
and the task. Warren (1940) identified like or dislike for
a household work activity as a factor affecting time use.
Maloch (1963) identified the characteristics of most and
least liked tasks. And Manning (1968) attempted to relate
attitudes of like and dislike of household tasks to time

used for them.

93

Muse (1946) found that dishwashing was the most dis-
liked task, and the most common reasons for disliking it
were the frequency of the job, its monotony, and the fact
that it consumed so much time. After-meal cleanup was dis-
liked by 30 percent of the homemakers in the present study.
The largest amount of daily average time used (70 minutes)
was by homemakers in two-member households who disliked

after-meal cleanup.

Hypothesis 5: Time use in food preparation increases as
the socioeconomic level of the homemaker
decreases.

Socioeconomic level had very low correlations with
all food preparation activities.

It was hypothesized that as socioeconomic position
declined more time would be used in food preparation. The
investigator predicted that time use at higher socioeconomic
positions (lower Hollingshead scores) would be less because
there may be more opportunities for obtaining meals away
from home, more social occasions involving eating out,
greater mobility, and easier access via resources and mobil-
ity to convenience foods and quick cooking methods.

Dickens (1943) attempted to use socioeconomic status
as a predictory factor for time use in a study she conducted
in Mississippi. Households were classified by amount of
rent paid or monthly rental value. She found that homemakers
living in homes of higher value used more time in meal
preparation. In the present study, the differences between

socioeconomic class levels is a few minutes per day.

94
Hypothesis 6: Time use in food preparation increases as
the homemaker's level of satisfaction with
physical health increases.

Homemakers' satisfaction with physical health, while
weak, correlated second highest in values.

Chronic illnesses, in addition to the normal debili-
tating effects of the aging process, have a detrimental
effect on the older person's ability to perform household
work activities. Studies in the past have assumed, for the
most part, that participating homemakers were void of these
problems. A number of homemakers in the present study indi-
cated problems with diabetes or hypertension, both demanding
special limited diets.

The homemaker's rating of his or her physical health
was highly subjective. Some older people have great toler-
ance for physical pain. Some refuse to consider as handi-
caps problems others would carry as great burdens; an ex-
ample is the legally blind homemaker who participated in
this study.

In considering this hypothesis, homemakers at higher
levels of health satisfaction may have increased motivation
to prepare food; appetites may be greater, social occasions
more frequent, food preservation activities performed, and
the physical ability to use kitchen equipment unhampered.
Logic would indicate some support for the reverse hypothesis:
more time would be used by homemakers at lower levels of ‘
health, the physical state of the homemaker slowing the

pace and thereby consuming greater time in food preparation

activities.

95
Hypothesis 2: Time use in food preparation increases as
the homemaker's level of satisfaction with
food preparation facilities increases.

Correlation of time use in food preparation and level
of satisfaction with food preparation facilities was weak.

About half the respondents were very satisfied with
their food preparation facilities; only three found them at
all unsatisfactory. This finding concurs with that of
Walker and Woods (nine tenths of the wives were mainly sat-
isfied with their kitchen for after-meal cleanup).

In considering the findings for all the hypotheses
it should be noted that since respondents were selected
from three groups similar in constituency, homogeneity of
the sample may have contributed to the low predictability of
several of the variables. For example, the number of house-
hold members investigated was one or two; a larger variation
in number may be necessary to produce significant results.
Homogeneity may also be a factor in the similarity of char-
acteristics of the kitchen and equipment owned and used
among the respondents, having implications for the predict-
ability of the variables level of liking for food prepara-
tion activities and satisfaction with food preparation
facilities. And homogeneity may have contributed to low
predictability for health: all respondents were participants
in nutrition programs in which reasonably good health was an

intrinsic factor in participation.

Chapter v

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

The overall objective was to measure the quantity of
time used for food preparation work by homemakers age 65 and
older living in independent households and to examine the
dependent variable, time use, with respect to several inde-
pendent variables. It was hypothesized that time used in
food preparation was a function of the homemaker's age,
housing type, number of household members, level of liking
for food preparation activities, socioeconomic position,
health, and level of satisfaction with food preparation
facilities. It was also hypothesized that more time was
used by the homemaker in all food preparation activities
than in any other household work activity.

All food preparation was composed of three activi-
ties: regular meal preparation, after-meal cleanup, and
special food preparation. A homemaker was the person of
either sex who had the primary responsibility for food
preparation. Household work was defined as the production
of goods and services within the household for its use and

consumption in five areas: (1) food preparation, (2) house

96

97
care, (3) family care, (4) physical care, and (5) marketing
and management.

This study was based on one conducted by Kathryn E.
Walker and Margaret E. Woods (1976): Time Use: A Measppe of
Household Productign of Family Goods and Services. Many
studies through the years have examined the relationship be-
tween time use and household work, but none have specifically
studied time use in food preparation by older men and women.

The non—random sample was drawn from within three
senior citizen nutrition program groups. The amount of
time used by 50 homemakers, representing 25 one-member and
25 two-member households, was measured using a time-record
chart designed by Walker and Woods. Two interviews, two
days apart, were conducted with each respondent in which all
time during two 24-hour time spans was recorded on the time-
record chart in 10-minute intervals for 13 classifications
of household work. An interview schedule was employed to
gather data relative to (1) selected variables believed to
be most closely related to time use for all food preparation
work and (2) selected variables most effective as time-use
estimators for older homemakers in the area of food prepara-
tion.

Control variables relating to the overall hypothesis
were household composition (one- or two-member independent
households), age of household members (age 65 and older).
geographical location (urban-suburban, Lansing, Michigan),
season of the year (winter), and day of the week (each day

represented.

98

Data were collected for independent variables related
to certain socioeconomic characteristics of the household
and the physical aspects of the food preparation work en—
vironment. Characteristics considered as attributes of the
social environment were: socioeconomic status (education and
occupation before retirement), age and sex characteristics
of household members, and characteristics of the household
as a unit. Physical characteristics selected as most likely
to describe the typical household food preparation environ-
ment were features of the housing, availability of adequate
work and storage space, and availability and use of house-
hold food preparation equipment.

Descriptive analysis was made for both instruments
using the Statistical Packagepfor the Social Sciences (Nie
et al., 1975) V 7.0 program, "Descriptive Statistics and
One-Way Frequency Distributions." This program determined
the basic distributional characteristics of each of the
variables and was used in the subsequent inferential analysis
in which the degree of inferential statistical relationship
between time used by homemakers in food preparation and the
independent variables was determined by using a nonparametric
measure of rank correlation, Kendall Tau. Partial correla-
tions determined the strength of the relationships among
the independent variables.

Limitations of the study concerned the sample, the
method used to measure socioeconomic status, and the cor-

relational data analysis. The sample was non—random and the

99
findings are therefore limited in generalizability. Socio-
economic status was measured using Hollingshead's (1957)
Two Factor Index of Social Position, an index based on edu-
cation and occupation of heads of household during their
working years. Since the sample consisted of all respondents
who were retired from occupational life, it is possible that
their true current socioeconomic status was not reflected by
the index. Correlational data analysis limitations were
those inherent in the correlational method.

The results of statistical analysis showed that two
variables, housing type and level of satisfaction with phys-
ical health, though weak, were more closely correlated to
time use in food preparation than others investigated. Char-
acteristics and content of food preparation work influenced
the measurements of the correlation. Regular meal prepara-
tion and after-meal cleanup were activities that were highly
repetitive and stable; all homemakers had at least the mini-
mum amount of work and storage space; equipment was generally
owned and used; and older homemakers most frequently prepared
meals that were of lower meal type complexity.

The results of descriptive analysis determined that
homemakers spent an average of 247 minutes per day on all
household work, of which 110 minutes was spent on all food
preparation accounting for 45 percent of all household work
time. Homemakers used 58 minutes per day in regular meal
preparation, 37 minutes per day in after-meal cleanup and

15 minutes per day in special food preparation. Spouses

100
contributed an average of 19 minutes per day to food prepa-
ration activities.

In conclusion, the focus of the present study was on
time spent in food preparation activities by homemakers age
65 and older living in independent households. Certain
variables were examined for their predictive ability as
time-use estimators. Two, housing type and physical health

of the homemaker, were most closely related to time use.

101
CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have addressed themselves to home man-
agerial concerns of older individuals and families. It has
been only recently that the last stage of the family life
cycle has gained the attention of researchers.

The overall objective of this study was to measure
the amount of time used in one regularly performed, daily
and time-consuming activity, food preparation, by older men
and women.

This investigator hypothesized that certain variables
would be effective predictors of time use in food preparation
by older men and women. All variable correlations were low,
housing type and physical health correlating somewhat higher
than the others. Following are the conclusion and discussion
for each variable of its effectiveness as a time-use pre-

dictor.

1. Time use in food preparation work by the homemaker did
increase as age of the homemaker increased. This relation- I
ship, however, was weakly correlated. Age, because the cor-
relation was so weak, is not an effective time-use predictor.
Variation in physical and mental faculties appears to be

greater than disparity in chronological age.

2. Time use in food preparation work by the homemaker did
increase as complexity of housing type increased from apart-

ments to one-family homes.

102

Housing type, though weak, correlated more strongly
than any other variable. Empirical evidence pointed to a
relationship between housing type and number of household
members that is supported by common observation. At this
stage in the life cycle, it is likely that more one-member
households will be housed in apartments, while two-member
households will reside in the more complex one-family dwell-
ings in which they may have lived for years. If housing
type is viewed from this perspective, it may be somewhat

effective as a time-use predictor.

3. Time use in food preparation work by the homemaker did
increase as the ppmber of househo;d_memppp§ increased.
Correlation value was low for this relationship.
The difference in time used for regular meal preparation and
after-meal cleanup between one- and two-member households
was not great enough to be significant as a time-use esti-
mator. Spouses contributed a small amount of time toward
food preparation activities that may have ameliorated some
of the effect of number of household members as a predictor

of time use.

4. Time use in food preparation work by the homemaker did
increase as the homemaker's level of liking for food prepara-
tion activities increased.

This relationship, however, correlated weakly. Most
homemakers liked food preparation activities. A number of

factors could account for the positive reSponse: (1) food

103
preparation is an activity that is life-sustaining, so that
participation is somewhat obligatory; (2) a tremendous vari—
ety of food products is on the market so that the homemaker
who dislikes food preparation activities at least has the
option of choosing the most appealing product that can be
prepared with the least effort; and (3) at the opposite
extreme, some homemakers view food preparation activity as
an avocation or entertainment. Because of weak correlation,
it is concluded that level of liking for food preparation

activities is not an effective time-use estimator.

5. Time use in food preparation work by the homemaker did
increase as the socioeconomic level of the homemaker
increased.

This variable also had a low correlation value with
time used in food preparation. It is possible that the
Hollingshead index used to measure socioeconomic status did
not accurately reflect the true current economic situation
of the sample. For socioeconomic position, however, the
results of this study concur with the findings of Walker and
Woods: socioeconomic level of the household had little
effect on time used for food preparation work and is not an

effective estimator of time use.

6. Time use in food preparation work by the homemaker did

increase as the homemaker's level of satisfaction with phys-

ical health increased.
This variable had the second highest correlation of

all variables. It is commonly accepted by gerontologists

104
that as age advances, physical deterioration accelerates
and health problems increase. The appetite of the older
person in poor health may be low, and the motivation to
prepare more complex meals reduced.
The homemaker's satisfaction with his or her level
of physical health is a somewhat effective estimator of

time use in food preparation.

7. Time use in food preparation work by the homemaker did
increase as the homemaker's level ofpsatisfaction with food
preparation facilipigg increased.

Level of satisfaction correlated weakly with time
use. Most homemakers were satisfied with their facilities.

The facilities and environment in which food prepara-
tion activities take place can have great indirect con-
sequences on the health of the older homemaker. The physi-
cal characteristics of advancing age can deter 13M: normal
functions of food preparation. If the physical design of
the food preparation space and facilities is not appropriate
for the physical capacities of the older homemaker, food
preparation activities could become difficult. The net
effect could be the creation of a psychological barrier that
precludes the older homemaker from engaging in adequate

food preparation activity.

8. And finally, time use in food preparation by the home-

maker was greater than time use for any other household work

activity.

This finding
findings of all the
this century: older
ily life cycle also

activities than any

105
reaffirms, with an added dimension, the
studies conducted since the beginning of
homemakers in the last stage of the fam-
use more time in food preparation

other household activity.

106
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Human ecology is concerned with all aspects of per-
sonal and family living during the entire life cycle. Human
ecologists are concerned with family organization, the task
of making decisions and guiding the actions of family mem-
bers as they interact with their environment. And human
ecologists are concerned with the management of all re-
sources. It is within this context that the following
questions are suggested for additional research.

1. Food preparation activities accounted for 45 per-
cent of the older homemaker's daily time in all household
work. Housing type and physical health of the homemaker
were found to be somewhat effective estimators of time use
in food preparation work. What variables or clusters of
variables might be better time-use estimators for food prep-
aration as well as for all household work of older home-
makers?

2. Within the confines of this research the statisti-
cal analyses were not exhaustive. What additional insights
regarding relations between and among the independent and
dependent variables might be produced by further analyses?

3. Following retirement from occupational life, is
there any evidence of change in the division of household
labor in two-member households? Do sex roles change after
retirement begins? How do older men and women differ from

each other in the way they spend their time during the day?

107

4. Does the content or character of household work
change as people age? Does the pace of the work slow so as
to fill the time gap left by changing roles and responsi-
bilities? Do homemakers' standards for household tasks
change as they age? Do motivations for performing house-
hold work change as the homemaker ages?

5. Does changing socioeconomic status due to retire-
ment influence the amount of time used for household work?
Does the isolation of some older persons because of socio-
economic reasons influence their use of time at home?

6. According to Boulding (1977). on a world wide
scale decisions about diet, procurement of food and food
preparation, manner of serving, and actual quantitative
allocation of food (however culturally constrained) rest in
the hands of the three fourths or so of women in every soci—
ety who are engaged in feeding its households. She suggests
women are the real food policy makers, even if men in many
cultures control the money and voice strong food prefer-
ences. How does this concept relate to the older homemaker
and the amount of time spent in food preparation? As gate-
keepers, do the time-use decisions of homemakers for food
preparation activities have implications for the broad view
of food systems? How do food preferences influence time-
use in food preparation? How do ethnic influences alter
food preparation time? I

7. What values underlie time use in food preparation?

Do values evident in food preparation change over the life

108
cycle? What implications does the research of Ryff and
Baltes (1976) on value transition and adult deve10pment in
women have for time use in food preparation?

8. The relationship of man to his near environment
is a key concept in the ecological systems approach. Focus
is placed upon the interfaces of the social-psychological,
physical-technological, and biological support systems as
they make impact upon man. The conceptual framework can be
used as a basis for analysis in the study of human aging;
such questions relating to older persons could be asked as:
How is life satisfaction influenced by time-use decision
making? How is time-use decision making affected by the
scarcity or abundance of resources? Does proximity to
urban centers influence time-use in the home? How is time
used in unusual environments such as nursing homes, insti-
tutions, or retirement villages?

Applied research of the type indicated in the ques—
tions suggested for further research should aim toward the
enhancement of later life. The richness of research material
probably is greater in the older age group than in any other
because they have lived through more stages of the life cycle
and experienced life over a longer span of time. Older peo-
ple are highly complex human beings and are beginning to
receive the research attention they deserve and need to

assure quality of life in their later years.

APPENDI CES

APPENDIX A

109

RECORD NUMBER

 

FOOD PREPARATION SURVEY

NAME TELEPHONE

 

ADDRESS ZIPCODE

 

As you participate in this study:

-the purpose of this study and your part in it will be
explained to you in advance.

-you are free to discontinue your participation at any time.

-at your request, you can receive additional explanation of
the study after your participation is completed.

-your answers to questions, as well as any conversations we
may have during the interview, are strictly confidential.
This page, which is the only page with your name on it,
will be separated from the other pages and kept in a
locked file available only to me.

11C)

1 (1,2)RECORD NUMBER

 

FOOD PREPARATION SURVEY

 

Wm ' '1"me
Numbers in parentheses indicate corresponding data chart coding numbers.
Hyphened numbers indicate data coding system on chart.

 

 

FIRST INTERVIEW

 

How many persons age 65 or older are living in your home?

 

Are any persons under age 65 living here? If yes, discontinue
interview.

From the age groups I am going to read to you, please tell me the
age group to which you belong:

-10000065 to 69

“20000070 to 7""

-30000075 to 79

-Lh....80 to BL;

-50000085 to 89

“60000090 to 99

Please-tell me what other adults are living here and the age group to
which each belongs:

 

 

 

 

 

ADULT . AGE GROUP
Homemaker (3)
Spouse (4)
Female (5)
Female (6)
Male (7)
Male (8)

 

 

Is your home
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5
an apartment mobile home two-family house one-family house other

(9)

 

 

 

 

 

 

About what year was your home built?

 

 

 

 

 

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5
before 1900- 1920- 1940- after
1900 1919 1939 1959 1960
(10)__
Were any of the following used yesterday in the kitchen?
-1 -2 -
No Yes Do not have
E11; carpet.sweeper ___
12 vacuum cleaner
(12; broom
1 kitchen exhaust fan ___

garbage disposer/indoor incinerator

 

111

RECORD NUMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Were any of the following used yesterday?
-1 .-2 -
No Yes Do not have
(16) electric frypan/griddle/deep fat fryer
(1?) pressure cooker
(18) electric mixer/blender
(19) oven (for other than broilin )
(20) broiler (separate or in oven?
(21) outdoor fireplace/grill
Do you have
-1 -2
No Yes
(22) dishwasher
(23) disposer
(2 ) 0° F. freezer unit or freezer
Do you have available work space in your kitchen
-1 -2
No Yes
(25) at right of sink
(26) at left of sink
(27) beside surface units (range or built-in)
(28) beside oven (range or built-in)
(29) adjacent to latch side of refrigerator
(30) 36" or more counter frontage for preparing food
(31) 72" or more of total counter frontage
Do you have
-1 -
No Yes
(32) 72" or more of wall cabinet frontage
(33) 72" or more of base cabinet frontage
(3 ) some storage space along side the range
(35) some storage Space along side the sink
(36) some storage space along side the refrigerator
How satisfactory do you find your kitchen for meal preparation?
unsatisfactory 4 satisfactory
-1 -2 - - -5 -
( )very fairly unsatisfactory satisfactory fairly very
37
Do any of the following determine whether you eat out or eat at home?
—1 -2
No Yes
(38) invitations from friends or family
(39) Senior Citizen nutrition pro
( O prefer eating out to eating at home
(41 out shopping or traveling
42 other reasons (if yes, what are they? )

 

 

1512

3 RECORD NUMBER

 

How would you rate your cooking skills?

unsatisfactory satisfactory
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -
very fairly unsatisfactory satisfactory fairly very

(43)

 

 

 

 

 

 

How much do you like or dislike each of these activities? Rate
each on a 6-point scale.

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6

dislike dislike dislike like like like
very some- some- very
much what what much

(44)meal preparation
(45)special food preparation
(46)after-meal cleanup

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there any special kitchen appliance which you do not now own, but
would like to own, which you think would make meal preparation
and/or cleaning up easier for you?

-1 -2
No Yes
(47)___ ___

If yes, what appliance is this?

 

Is there anythin in particular about your kitchen which makes meal
preparation and or cleaning-up especially hard for you?

-1 -2

No Yes

If yes, what is it?

(48)

 

 

SECOND INTERVIEW

 

of the following used yesterday in the kitchen?

Do not have
carpet sweeper/electric broom
vacuum cleaner
broom
kitchen exhaust fan
garbage disposer/indoor incinerator

 

of the following used yesterday?

2

(D

'1

0
||||||8M lllllmg
m‘4 Ink:

-1 -

No D2 not have
(54)___ electric frypan/griddle/deep fat fryer ___
(55)___, pressure cooker ___
E56;___ electric mixer/blender ___
57 ____ oven (for other than broiling) ___
é;8;___ broiler (separate or in oven) ___
9 ___ ___

outdoor fireplace or grill

113

 

 

 

 

4 RECORD NUMBER
0n about how many of the last 7 days were the following used in the
kitchen?
0 1 2 3 L: 5 6 7
(60)_ _, _ _ __ _, _ _ carpet sweeper/electric broom
(61)_ _ _ _, _ _ ._ _ vacuum cleaner
(62)_ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ broom
(6B)_ _ ‘_ _ _ _, _ _ kitchen exhaust fan
(6 )_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ indoor incinerator/garbage disposer
0n about howumagy 2f the last 7 days were the following used?
0 1 2
(65)_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ dishwasher
(66)_ _ _ _, _ '_ _ _ disposer
(67)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ food from 0° F. freezer
(68)_ - _ _, __ _ _ _ electric frypan/griddle/deep fat fryer
(69)_ _ _ _ _ _. _, _ oven (for other than broilin )
(70)_ _ _ _ _ _, _j _ broiler (separate or in oven?
(71)_, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ pressure cooker
(72)_ _ ‘_ _ ‘_ _ _ _ electric mixer/blender
(73)_ _ _ _ p _ _ ‘_ outdoor fireplace/grill
Do you have any difficulty doing your household work or is

additional work done by you or other household members due to the
existance of some physical or mental impairment of a family member?

 

-1 -2
No Yes
(74)___
How would you describe your general hialth?
-1 -2 -3 -
poor fair good excellent

(75)

 

 

 

 

 

What is the highest grade in school completed by you?

your spouse?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Coding: -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
grad. 4-yr. post high 10th to 8th to less than
work college high school 11th 9th 7th
school grad. grade grade grade
(76)homemaker
(77)spouse

 

 

Before you retired for whom did you work?

 

What kind of business or industry is this?

 

 

What kind of work were you doing?

 

 

114

5 RECORD NUMBER

 

 

For whom did your Spouse work?

 

What kind of business or industry is this?

 

What kind of work was your spouse doing?

 

 

 

Coding: -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7
exec. mgmt. admin. clerical skilled semi- unskilled
and and personnel tech. manual skilled worker
major prof. small bus. worker worker worker
prof. owner

(78)homemaker

(79)spouse

 

115

 

 

 

6 RECORD NUMBER
CODING
Days of the week:
-1...Sunday -2...Monday -3...Tuesday
-4...Wednesday -5...Thursday -6...Friday -7...Saturday
Recall day of the week
-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7

(80)__ __ _ __ _ __ _

Record day of the week
(81)

 

Number of persons served this meal at the same time

-1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 number of persons
Recall day
(82)meal 1
(8 )meal 2
(8 )meal 3
(85)meal
(86)meal 5
(87)meal 6

Record day
(88)meal 1
(89)meal 2
90gmeal
91
92)meal 5
93)meal 6

( ___________
( ___________
( __________
(

 

Number and types of meals prepared

—1 -2 -3 «4 -5 -6 number of meals
Recall day
(94) Type
(95) Type
(96) Type
(97) Type
(98) Type

Record day

(99) Type
(100)Type __ _ _ _ _ __

1
2

(101mm; __ _ _ _ _ _
5

U1¢xnund

(102)Type
(103)Type

 

116

 

Record No. _ -

Non-cooking

(clean, fonn

meaSure,
late

List dishes served
(on indented line list

 

* Beginning with first meal prepared.
“Form before preparation:
1. Fresh; 2. Canned; 3. Frozen; 4. Dried; 5. Read etc-serve; 6. Ready-to-bake;
7. Ready-to-mix; 8. Home prepared; 9. Leftovers: ready-to-serve; (b) reheated;
(c) completely changed.

117

 

Record No. _ -

Non-cooking

(clean, fonn

measure,
late

List dishes served
(on indented line list

 

* Beginning with first meal prepared.
NForm before preparation:
1. Fresh; 2. Canned; 3. Frozen; 4. Dried; 5. Rea -to-serve; 6. Ready-to-bake;
7. Ready-to-mix; 8. Home prepared; 9. Leftovers: (a ready-to-serve: (b) reheated;
(c) completely changed.

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Record No. -
792A
Recall date: Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal lMeal
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 [lo
Number of persons served i
this meal at the same time l
Meal prepared by (use symbols l
frOm time record) i
Approximate time meal '
preparation started L
I. Was there anything unusual about the day’s meals? If yes, for which meal and what
was it?

Meal I: Meal 6:

Meal 2: Meal 7:

Meal 3: Meal 8:

Meal 4: Meal 9:

Meal 5: Meal l0:
Record date: Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal Meal

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO

Number of persons served
this meal at the same time
Meal prepared by (use Symbols
from time record ) l
Appr0ximate time meal I
preparation started - l
I. Was there anything unusual about the day's mealS? if yes, for which meal and what

 

 

 

 

 

 

was it:
Meal l:
Meal 2:
Meal 3:
Meal 4:

 

Meal 5:

 

Meal 6:
Meal 7:
Meal 8:
Meal 9:
Meal l0:

 

 

119

 

 

 

Record No. -
____ fl_ __ _q ’ -__ 792A
' Date Name
Data reported for interview of
day of week and date taken interviewer
I
Recall day I
Record day I

 

 

 

 

interviewer: Please note any circumstances that made the days reported different
from other days:

I. Unusual weather conditions on recall day

 

record.day

 

during last 7 days

 

2. Unusual home conditions on recall day

 

record day

 

during last 7 days

 

3. Unusual family activities on recall day

 

record day

 

during last 7 days

 

4. Special situations in home, such as
chronically ill or handicapped person

 

 

 

Office Record Date By Whom

Interview validated

 

 

 

‘ Time record completed H S F 1" Fri M M Checked with
questionnaire

 

Recall day

 

Record day

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120

NEW YORK STATE COLLEGE OF HOME ECONOMICS
A Statutory College of the State University
At Cornell University, Ithaca, New York I4850
789A
Department of Household Economics and Management

Use-of-time Research Project
Definition of Household Activities

HOUSEHOLD ACTIVITIES

l. Regular Meal Preparation

 

Preparation of food for all regular meals served on record days.
Breakfast, noon and evening meals
Snacks, packed lunches
Special foods (baby formula, cocktails, etc.)

Cleanup incidental to meal preparation

Setting the table

Serving the food

2. Special Food Preparation

 

Preparation of food for future use.

Food baked or prepared for another day

Canning and freezing
Preparation of food for guests and special occasions

Holiday meals

Party refreshments

Food gifts and donations of food served at functions outside the home
Cleanup incidental to this preparation

3. After-Meal Cleanup

 

After-meal care of table, dishes, leftovers, kitchen equipment and refuse.
(also include unloading dishwasher or dish drainer for storage.)

*§******

4. Regular House Care

 

Daily, semi-weekly, weekly, and biweekly care and cleaning of house and
appliances.
Cleaning tasks, such as
mopping
dusting

vacuuming
Making beds

Putting rooms in order
Tending the house heating system
Caring for house plants or flowers

121

789A

5. Sgggial U932? Cape and Mgiptgnaflge
Occasional or seasonal care and cleaning of house, Such as-

Washing windows

Cleaning closets

Waxing floors

Defrosting and cleaninn freezer

Special cleaning of oven

Repair and upkeep of home, appliances and furnishings, such aS'
Painting and papering
Repairing furniture
Repairing equipment
Reupholsterino
Redecorating

********

6. Care 9f Yard and Car

Daily and seasonal care and maintenance of yard, garden areas, walks,
garage_ car, and equipment used for these activities. (Also include
care of garbage and trash.)

********
7. Washing 9y Machine

Washing clothes and household textiles at home or at laundromat.
Collectino and sorting soiled things for washing
Pretreating
Loading and unloading washer or dryer (do not include time taken by machine)
Hanging things on line and taking them down
Cleanup incidental to washing
Folding and storing unironed clothes

8. ironing

Ironing and pressing of clothes. Also include:
Preparing clothes and household linens for ironing
Getting out and putting away equipment used

Folding and storing ironed articles

9. Special Care afl9.99”5+rUCI192.RI.9'OIQLEEHEQQ HousehoLd Liflgn§_

 

All activities related to clothing production and upkeep not included in
7. and 8. For example, include:

Hand washing

Mending

Spot removal

Shoe care

Dry cleaning

Seasonal storage

Construction of clothing and household furnishings

********

1122
IO. Physical Care 9: Family Members 789A

 

 

All activities related to physical care, such as:
Bathing, feeding and dressing of family members
Giving bedside care
First aid
Taking family members to dentist or physician, beauty or barber shop

ll. Other Care gj_Family Members

 

 

All activities related to social and educational development of family
members, such as:

Helping with lessons

Reading to children

Taking children to social and educational functions

Taking care of family pets

********
I2. Marketing (or Shopping)
All activities related to shOpping, whether or not purchases are made.
Include:
Time for shopping in person, by telephone, mail, or home sales or delivery

Time for putting purchases away

I3. Management and Record Keeping

 

All management activities of the household.
Making decisions and planning, such as:
Thinking about and discussing alternatives
Planning menus
Making out market lists
Looking around for ideas
Measuring space for something
Figuring out how much money is available
Checking plans as you carry them out
Supervising work of others
Thinking back to see if plans worked

All record keeping activities, such as:
Paying bills
Making bank deposits
Making and working on records of receipts and expenditures

********

OTHER WORK

 

l4. School, Paid and voiunteer Work
Time for each family member 90ing to and from work or school as well as

time at work or school.

 

 

********

OTHER ACTIVITIES

 

l5. All Other PersonaT, Family Egg Social Activities

All activities net included in l-l4 above. For example:
Personal activities as eating and sleeping
Social activities as letter writing, visiting, recreation and play
(individual, family or community)

12:)

Instructions for Keeping Time Record

We need to have a record of how each member of your family
used his time for two days. To show you how to keep the record,
we'll record yesterday's use of time while I am here. For the
second record we would like you to record your family's use
of time for a second day.

On the left side of the time record, household work and
other activities are listed: across the top of the record, the
twenty-four hours of the day are listed. We are asking that
you keep a time record for the entire family, and that you
ask each person to look over the charts to check your recording
of their use of time. For ease in recalling and recording the
time, we have broken each hour into six ten-minute periods.

A combination of colors and letters or numbers is used to
record each family member's time. The activity that a family
member has done is identified by symbols placed in the appropriate
time and activity blocks. All female homemakers will record in
red: all male homemakers will record in blue: all female spouses
will record in brown: all male spouses will record in black:
all other female adults will record in yellow: and all other
male adults will record in green.

If from 8:00 to 8:10 a.m. you prepared the breakfast, you
write a letter in the color appropriate for you in the first
block after 8 a.m. in the meal preparation row. If you
continued this for another ten minutes. you put another letter
in the following block at 8:10. For longer. continuous
activities. an arrow and line can be drawn from the time of
starting an activity to the time the activity was completed.
using the individual's letter at each end. (H H)
Time recorded is active time use: that is, tfhe involved in
getting ready for the job, working at the job and cleaning up
after the job. but it does not include the time required for
a machine to function without your full attention. If two
tasks are done within the 10-minute period, but not simultaneously,
draw a line to divide the time block into approximate 5-minute
periods and write in the worker's symbol.

 

H

 

 

 

 

If you or any other worker did two.or more things at the
same time, record the time in the same manner as above, but
circle the letter for the secondary activity. For example,
if you were preparing di er and watching TV. place an K under

Meal Preparation and an under Other Agtivities.

Include transportation time with the activity for which the
trip was made, but use a T after the family symbol to indicate
time spent in travel {Hm} If more than one thing was done
on a trip. include the time enroute 3g the activity of the
first stop and assign the time for return trip to the
last activity. For example, if you went to the dry cleaners
and then did your marketing, include time to dry cleaners under

Spegial Care of Clgthing and include the time traveling home
under Market ng.

121+

 

Bm<mo Dmoommlmz H9

121+

 

9&4ng Omoommlmz Hm.

APPENDIX B

1215

YOU ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN A SPECIAL STUDY
OF TIME USE IN FOOD PREPARATION OF MEN AND WOMEN AGE 65 AND OLDER

conducted by
BETTY OLSON
volunteer worker with the Delta-Waverly 39ers
and
graduate student at Michigan State University

§§§§§§§§O{Q‘IOQG‘I‘I'O‘IO‘IGOGO‘I'IQ’{GO‘I‘I‘IO}

Here are answers to some of your questions about this special study.....
WHY STUDY TIME SE IN 0D P ARATION OF MEN AND WOMEN AGE AND OLDER?

*Theseimen and women are a growing and important part of our

soc ety.

*Recognition of the value of housework is increasing. You,
as older persons, deserve recognition for the work you
do at home.

*Some social scientists are trying to put a dollars and cents
value on housework. They need to know what is done before
a value can be put on it.

*This study will measure the amount of time used in all house-
work. looking especially at the factors which affect the
amount of time used in food preparation.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY?

*50 men and women age 65 and older will be participating.
i”fou are one of those chosen to participate.

 

 

WE: SHOULD I PARTICIPATE?

*Based on past experience, I think you will enjoy the interview
and the uestionnaire.

*But the maIn reason is to help me learn about how much time
you spend in housework, and to help to improve the quality
of life for all retired persons.

 

DO I HAVE ANY CHOICE ABOUT THIS?

*You certainly do! Participation is STRICTLY VOLUNTARY. After
you read more about the study, I think you will agree that
it is important and exciting, and that you will be glad
to be part of it.

 

126

WHAT WILL MY PART IN THE STUDY BE?

*Sometime during the next few weeks either I or an interviewer
I have trained will contact you to arrange for a personal
interview.

*Sometime after that, one of us will spend about i hour with
you filling out the questionnaire and a chart which records
the time you use in housework. At this time we will ask
you to fill out another time chart by yourself the next day.
Before we leave wevill make an appointment with you to meet
again to collect the charts and at a few more questions.

WHAT ND 0F NGS DO YOU WANT TO ASK ME?

*The interview and questionnaire ask about your kitchen and
about how you feel about preparing food and cleaning up.

’A time-record chart will record all the time you spend
doing housework.

 

 

 

I DO VERY LITTLE HOUSEWORK SO W DO YOU WANT O KNOW HOW MUCH TIME
W

1This is what I want to know! I am interested in m and the
housework ygg, do--whatever the amount of time you spend
doing it. I need to know if some persons use very little
time in housework.

 

 

WHO WILL SEE MY ANSWERS?

*Your individual answers are held strictly confidential. The
information you give me will be put through a computer
at Michigan State University. It is never seen by anyone
in the club, or anyone else who knows you.

 

 

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE INTERVIEWS AND UEST ONNAIRES?

*The diagram on the next page shows what happens. Your
answers are punched onto computer cards. and then
analyzed by computers. After results are known, a
report will be written. printed, put on microfilm and
read by leaders interested in older persons.

 

 

W LL GET TO BE T RESULTS OF THE STUDY?

*Yes indeed. In fact, you will be among the first to know.
I am planning a newsletter to be sent to all those who
participate telling them about the results of the study.

 

WHAT IF I HAVE OTHER UESTIONS ABOUT STUDY?

*You can ask me on Wednesdays at the club meeting. or call
me at home at 321-6268. '

 

1J2?

_, -‘m--C.~--u~‘-—n-ml

h“ "w v -‘_-,__..“"‘-1_

 

FLOW CHART OF THE STUDY

 

 

 

‘ Information from

PERSONAL INTERVIEWS ;
g 105 men and women

 

 

 

 

 

 

TIME-RECORD CHARTS

 

I...._.__. .U. . ..—<.— -.——1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JIEW_ ..w- —- —w- — v e-1 .2

g l;

i ANSWERS PUNCHED ON COMPUTE_§__§_A_,RQ§__, :'

at I '1
Michigan T I
State . QQMPUTERS J 3
Univemty l | games .c.9m.§.zm-.mmmomm_l if

 

 

 

NEWSLETTER
to all who
participated
REPORTS PRINTED, PUT ON MICROFILM, in the study

 

 

 

AND STUDIED BY LEADERS INTERESTED
IN MEN AND WOMEN AGE 65 AND OLDER

 

 

 

.— - . ,-.....- a ,g A WOJHI' our. «on... vague nmcrlnov 0% fill“ If
. y . . V \ '.l A '

 

CHANGES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE LIVES OF RETIRED PERSONS
AND FAMILIES. RECOGNITION FOR
THE WORK PERSONS DO AT HOME
FOR THEMSELVES ,

O Q -efl-'O |\‘Ovlu’-'~ so 1;.1,»
. . - _ ,

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

STATEMENT OF RESEARCH ETHICS

The following guidelines were adhered to in conducting

this study by the investigator and the interviewer she hired.

The purpose of the guidelines was to protect the rights of

the respondents.

1.

All study procedures were reviewed to assure that the
rights of individual respondents were protected at each
stage of the research.

All information that connected a particular interview with
a specific respondent was removed as soon as the second
interview was completed.

This information was kept in a locked file for the dura-
tion of the study and will be destroyed when the study is
finished. Interview schedules are identified only by
number.

All information gained during the conduct of the research
was considered privileged information, whether it con-
cerned the interview itself or the extraneous observations
of the respondent's home, family, or activities.

All subjects gave their cooperation freely.

All subjects were informed of the nature of the investi-
gation and the exact form of all procedures before the
interview questioning began.

All subjects were informed that they were free to discon-
tinue their participation at any time.

All subjects were informed that more explanation of or
information about the study was available to them at their
request after their participation was completed.

All subjects were given an opportunity to learn the
results of the study.

128

APPENDIX D

views.

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEWER TRAINING PROCEDURE

An interviewer was hired to conduct some of the inter-

The following outline for procedure was used to train

the interviewer.

I. Introduction to the study

Objectives

Justification

Relationship to the Walker and Woods study
Operational definitions

II.

III.

A.
B.
C.
D.

Introduction to the procedure

A. Sample information

B. Number of interviews with each respondent
C. Instruments

1.

2.

Time-record chart

a. Explanation of how to use the chart

b. Demonstration of coding system

Interview schedule

a. Demonstration of how each part of the
schedule is to be completed

b. Emphasis on coding for "description of
food prepared" by operations

Role of the interviewer

A. Interviewer arranges for appointment for first
interview with respondent

First interview

B.

1.
2.

3.
h.

5.

Interviewer arrives at appointed time
Interviewer explains the study to the respondent
using the flyer prepared by the investigator
Interviewer collects data indicated on schedule
as "first interview"

Interviewer reads the definitions of activities
to the homemaker in preparation for completing
the time-record chart

Interviewer reads directions for recording time
on the time-record chart

129

6.

7.

8.

130

Interviewer records time-use for the preceding
day, making certain respondent understands
recording concept. Interviewer may ask probing
questions to facilitate recall, such as "and then
what did you do?"

Interviewer leaves chart to be completed for the
next day along with the instruction sheet, defi—
nition sheet, and appropriate-color markers
Interviewer makes appointment for the second
interview

C. Second interview

1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

Second interview is held two days after the first
Interviewer arrives at appointed time
Interviewer collects time-record charts and
markers

Interviewer carefully reviews the homemaker's
record of activities for the preceding day,
checking for completeness

Interviewer completes schedule for the "second
interview"

IV. Interviewer and investigator
A. To handle problems the interviewer may experience in
the field, the investigator is called for suggested
approach
B. Monetary considerations

1.
2.

30

Pay rate per schedule

Reimbursement for mileage (includes mileage for
incomplete schedules)

Introduction to the form prepared by the investi-
gator for recording this information, and for the
convenience of the interviewer in recording
appointments and directions for locating resi—
dence of respondent

Social Security and withholding tax forms if
interviewer intends to earn more than $50.00 in a
three-month period

 

mpmo
voFMU«Hm> 3mw>nmpsH

 

 

 

 

posmfibnmpzw mo chapmcmflm
map pczosw Havoe

odsumzom uoPoHQEOU
n ma. a x mmaws owmmafls mflgyuossom

 

.mozmvfimmn op wfiowpowufic Hmwoomm

 

 

131

 

 

 

 

has whooom .E.a PQmEpswonmm cam flo mews
.E.m

mac HHMoom .E.n PCoEpcwommm Pma Mo mafia
.E.m

mzommmqma mmmman<

 

Bzm020mmmm mo m2<z

 

me¢m

 

mmmzbz Qmoomm

 

Mm: mmSmH>mmazH mom Smom

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

INTERVIEWING OLDER MEN AND WOMEN:
SOME CONSIDERATIONS

Betty Ann Olson

Aging is an area of concern that is gaining consider-
able attention in all social and scientific fields. This
concern is justified by the expectation that the number of
persons aged 65 and older will increase greatly in the next
few decades; by 2000 this group will be the largest and most
educated elderly in history. The social and political im-
plications of this phenomenon are tremendous.

Aging is increasingly becoming of interest to re-
searchers. As more research is conducted, more opportuni-
ties will arise for researchers to employ the interview
method to collect data from older persons; and, in turn,
more older men and women will find themselves in the role
of interview respondent.

To establish rapport, the personal relationship of.
confidence and understanding between the interviewer and the
respondent, is the goal of the interviewer; rapport provides
the foundation for good interviewing (Survey Research Cen-
ter, 1969). The interview will be more successful for all

concerned, and rapport more readily established, if

132

133

the interviewer is sensitive to certain considerations

unique to older men and women.

figmg

In the English language, there is no single, conven—
ient noun commonly used to designate an old person. Compara-
tives such as "senior," "senior citizen," "aged," "elderly,"
and "older person" are used. Many older men and women feel
uncomfortable with these names; they consider them patron-
izing and charged with hidden meanings connotating deni-
grating stereotypes (Schmerl, 1975). In this author's
experience, most persons who object to some of the names
mentioned do not feel as uncomfortable with the terms "older
person," "older men and women," or "men and women over 65."
The interviewer who is aware that names given to segments of
the population are far more than mere identity tags may be
able to secure the cooperation of the respondent and build
rapport more quickly. Sensitivity to the implications of
the name on the part of the interviewer is one opportunity
to contribute to the growing image of respectability in

old age.

Hearing Loss

By age 65 the percentage of Americans suffering
hearing-impairment is one half of all men and 30 percent of
all women (National Center for Health Statistics, 1971).
Hearing changes can affect the older person's ability to
communicate. Bettinghaus and Bettinghaus (1977) state that

communication problems that arise with the hearing-impaired

134
older person are complicated by attitudes commonly held to-
ward them. They suggest that the hearing-impaired older
person may seem to be inattentive or withdrawn, display a
strained facial expression, or even answer questions inap-
propriately; these symptoms are commonly associated with
senility. Recognizing this hearing-loss problem, the inter-
viewer can use several techniques to compensate for it
(Merriam): 1) speak louder, 2) speak slowly, articulating
carefully, 3) use simple words, and A) face the older per-

son directly when speaking to him or her.

iower Pace

Senescence is the normal process of biological aging,
the important bodily changes that occur as age increases.
This slowing down process can be observed by the interviewer
in the more cautious, more thoughtful, or more rigid appear-
ance of the older respondent. To compensate for slower
pace, the interviewer must adapt his pace to that of the
respondent, using care not to rush him or her physically.

It has been observed by this interviewer that some
older persons appear to have shorter interest spans than are
usually expected in adults. To facilitate obtaining a com-
plete interview, particularly if the schedule is long, it
may be helpful to 1) vary the pace or tempo of the interview,

or 2) allow interruptions of the interview by briefly chang-

ing the topic or sharing an anecdote before continuing.

135

Environment

The interview is actually a new situation for most
older persons. The respondent, when the interview begins,
does not know what is expected of him. To help the respon-
dent to feel at ease, the interviewer needs to consider the
atmosphere or environment in which the interview takes place.
Environment is important to older persons; roles are played
in specific places, and older people can become quite
attached to places and things in them, taking comfort in
familiar surroundings.

In this author's experience, the most successful
interviews were conducted at community centers or in the
homes of the older persons. At the centers, the author
requested the use of small, quiet rooms away from the large
groups of older persons but still in familiar surroundings
for the respondent. When the interview was held in the
respondent's home, the investigator found it helpful to make
an appointment for a time of day that did not interfere with
the respondent's routine. Some older people find comfort
and security in routine; for example, they nap or watch
certain television programs at certain times each day, and
prefer not to have interruptions at these times. So that
the respondent's routine is not rushed or upset, the inter-

viewer should allow sufficient time for the interview.

Need for Recognition
Attitudes toward old age vary widely from culture to

culture. The general American culture tends toward the

136
consideration of the older person as a liability, not as an
asset. The idea that old people are senile, showing forget-
fulness, confusional episodes and reduced attention is
widely accepted. Butler (1975) calls this "the myth of
senility" and states that some of what is called senility is
the result of physical problems that are treatable and often
reversible. Whether or not they actually suffer from physi-
cal or mental problems, older persons may respond in certain
situations with the response or behavior that they perceive
as expected of them, actually acting out the negative role
society has given them. This negative behavior can manifest
itself as a communication problem in the interview situation.
The interviewer who is aware of this can compensate for it
by expressing a genuine interest in the respondent and
accepting him or her as a person. The interviewer can give
assurance to the respondent that no answer is wrong or out
of place, and that his or her answers have value.

The interview itself can be esteem-building for the
respondent. It is flattering for persons of all ages, and
particularly for older persons, to be asked their opinions.
In addition, an interview does not necessarily end when the
interviewer leaves; the respondent may "live" the interview
many times as he relates his experiences to his family,

friends or neighbors.

Mental Functioning

Older persons can exhibit apparent memory defects,

such as being unable to remember names of persons or objects.

137
It is commonly believed that all kinds of memory (short-term,
recent, remote, and distant) show a decline with advancing
age. Studies, however, do not overwhelmingly support this
idea (Atchley, 1977). While it is true that there is an age
deficit in recall of various types, it is not clear whether
this deficit results from declining memory or from declining
ability to learn initially. Whichever it is, older persons
may have difficulty arranging events into the proper sequence
or temporal relationships, as well as the proper spacial
relationships. Merriam (1977) suggests that the interviewer
structure questions requiring these types of reponses as
simply and uncomplicatedly as possible.

Another mental functioning problem can be attributed
to aphasia. Aphasia refers to the general inability to com-
municate through language and to the specific disturbance in
receiving or producing spoken language. In adults aphasia
is often the result of a cerebral vascular accident (Hutchin-
son and Beasley, 1977) or some other disease or injury of the
brain. Merriam states that this communication problem can be
recognized by defective sentence structure, repetition of
phrases, difficulty in discussing abstract topics and break-
ing off in the middle of sentences, unable to finish the
thoughts. She suggests that older people often compensate
for this problem by using gesture or pantomime, by making a
continued attempt to find the desired word, or by using peri-
phrasis or circumlocution. An interviewer working with a
person with aphasia can skillfully assist the reSpondent by

providing the right word, restructuring a thought, and

138
keeping abstract questions to a minimum.

Conclusion

To build rapport with the older respondent, the inter-
viewer needs to be sensitive to certain characteristics of
older persons that could cause problems in the interview.
The interviewer who is aware of the possible existence of
hearing-impairment, slower-paced life style, need for recog-
nition, and problems with mental functioning can adapt his
procedures accordingly and make the interview a situation

that generates satisfaction for all concerned.

List of References

Atchley, Robert C.
1977 The Social Forces in Later Life, 2d ed. Belmont,
Calif.: Wadsworth.

Bettinghaus, Carole 0. and Erwin P. Bettinghaus
1977 "Communication considerations in the health care of
the aging." Aging and Communication. Herbert J. Oyer
and E. Jane Dyer, eds. Baltimore: University Park
Press, 129-15 .

Butler, Robert
1975 Why Survive? Being 01d in America. New York: Harper
and Row.

Hutchinson, John M. and Daniel S. Beasley
1977 "Speech and language functioning among the aging."
Aging and Communication. Herbert J. 0yer and E. Jane
0yer, eds. Baltimore: University Park Press, 155-174.

Merriam, Sharan
1977 "Interviewing the aged: some considerations for the
adult Educator." Adult Leadership 32 (March):
215-21 .

139

National Center for Health Statistics
1971 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. "Health
in the later years of life." Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

Schmerl, E. Fritz
1975 "In the name of the elder——an essay." The Gerontolo-
gist 30 (October): 386.

Survey Research Center
1969 Institute for Social Research. Interviewer's Manual.
Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Beyer, Glenn H. and Margaret E. Woods
1962 "Living and activity patterns of the aged." Research
Report No. 6. Ithaca,-New York: Center for Housing
and Environmental Studies, Cornell University.

Bloom, Martin
1972 "Measurement of the socio—economic status of the
aged: new thoughts on an old subject." The Geron-
tologist 27 (Winter): 374-378.

Boulding, Elise
1977 Women in the Twentieth Century World. New York:
Wiley.

Chapin, Francis S.
1974 Human Activity Patterns in the City. New York: Wiley.

Cowles, May L. and Ruth P. Dietz
1956 "Time spent in homemaking activities by a selected
group of Wisconsin farm homemakers." Journal of Home
Economics 48 (January): 29-35.

Crawford, 1.2.
1927 "The use of time by farm women." University of Idaho
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 146.

Dickens, Dorothy
1945 "Time activities in homemaking." Mississipfii Agri-
cultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 42 .

Gage, M.G.
1960 The Work Load and its Value for Fifty Homemakers,
Tompkins County, New York. Unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Cornell University.

Hayes, William L.
1973 Statistics for the Social Sciences. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Heirich, M.

1964 "The use of time in the study of social change."
American Sociological Review 29: 386-397.

140

141

Hollingshead, August B.
1957 "Two factor index of social position." Box 1965,
Yale Station, New Haven, Conn. Mimeographed.

Isaac, Stephen and William B. Michael
1971 Handbook in Research and Evaluation. San Diego:
Edits.

heeland , H o
1929 "Women on farms average sixty-three hours' work
weekly, survey of 700 homes." U.S. Department of
Agriculture Yearbook. Washington D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.

Kutner, B., D. Fanshel, A.M. Togo, and T.S. Langer
1956 Five Hundred over Sixty: A Community Survey of Aging.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lopata, Helena Z.
1966 "The life cycle of the social role of housewife."
Sociology and Social Research 51 (October): 5-19.

Maloch, Francille
1963 "Properties, qualities, and characteristics of most
and least liked household tasks." Cornell University
Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir 384.

Manning, Sarah L.
1968 "Time use in household tasks by Indiana families."
Research Bulletin No. 837, Purdue University.

Morgan, James N., Ismail Sirageldin, and Nancy Baerwaldt
1966 Productive Americans: A Study of How Individuals
Contribute to Economic Progress. Ann Arbor: Survey
Research Center, University of Michigan.

Moser, A.M.

1935 "Food consumption and use of time for food work among
farm families in the South Carolina Piedmont." South
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station of Clemson
Agricultural College Bulletin No. 300.

Muse, Marianne
1946 "Time expenditures on homemaking activities in 183
Vermont farm homes." Vermont Agricultural Experiment
Station Bulletin No. 530.

Nelson, Linda Jean
1963 Daily Activity Patterns of Peasant Homemakers. Unpub-
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.

142

Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin
Steinbrenner, and Dale H. Bent
1975 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd ed.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ryff, Carol D. and Paul B. Baltes
1976 "Value transition and adult development in women:
the instrumentality-terminality sequence hypothesis."
Developmental Psychology 12, no. 6: 567-568.

Shanas, Ethel
1966 "VieWpoint and interview with Ethel Shanas." Geri-
atrics 21, No. 4: 110.

Siegel, S.
1956 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Szalai, Alexander
1972 The Use of Time. The Hague: Mouton.

Szalai, Alexander
1975 "The situation of women in light of the contemporary
time—budget research." United Nations World Confer-
ence of the International Women's Year, Mexico City,
June 19-July 2, 1975.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
1972 "1970 Census of Population and Housing. Census
Tracts. Lansing, Michigan." PHC (1)-106.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
1976 "Demographic aspects of aging and the older popula-
tion in the United States." Current Population
Reports, Special Studies, Series P-23, No. 59 (May).

Walker, Kathryn E.
1957 "Homemaking work units for New York state house-
holds." Cornell University Agricultural Experiment
Station Memoir 353.

Walker, Kathryn E. and William Gauger
1973 "Time and its dollar value in household work."
Family Economics Review ARS 62-65, (Fall): 8-13.

Walker, Kathryn E. and Margaret E. Woods
1976 Time Use: A Measure of Household Production of Family
Goods and Services. Washington, D.C.: AHEA.

Warren, Jean
1940 "Use of time in its relation to home management."
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin No. 734. _

143

Wasson, Grace E.
1930 "Use of time by South Dakota farm homemakers." South
Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
No. 2 7.

Wiegand, Elizabeth
1954 "Use of time by full-time and part-time homemakers
and its relation to home management." Cornell
University Agricultural Experiment Station Memoir

330-

Wilson, Maude
1929 "Use of time by Oregon farm homemakers." Oregon
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 256.