MARY igan Sum iversity l" ABSTRACT SELECTED PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WHITE COLLAR AND BLUE COLLAR RESIDENTS IN THREE SUBURBAN SUBDIVISIONS By Gary w . King The continuing rapid population growth in the peripheries of urban places attests to the grox'ring importance of suburbs in con- tem‘oorary American society. Past studies of suburbanites have iden— tified two major variables assumed to affect behavior: location of residencg and social class differences. This dissertation reports on a study of three subdivisions in the suburban ring surrounding Lansing, Michigan. The purposes of the Study were: (1) To investigate the relationship between "style of life" and the two major variable mentioned above. "Style of life" was measured by such items as stage in the family cycle, social parti- cipation, family mobility patterns, and leisure time activities. (2) To assess the relative influence of soc1al class ideology, uSing occupational category (white collar or blue collar) as the Operational variable , and economic level on behavior patterns exhibited by the sarple respondents. (3) To provide additional basic data on suburban r sidents . (h) To relate suburban growth to the overall process of e urbanization ' Gary W. King The three study areas were chosen on the basis of two major criteria: different location in the periphery of Lansing, and occupation. The ratio of white collar to blue collar occu- pations is high in one area, lower in the second, and lowest in the third. These two criterion factors were suggested by pre- vious studies as being major influences on behavior. In addi- tion, subdivisions of similar house values were used, in an effort to hold income levels constant. Summary data from the total sample indicated that these subdivisions were heterogeneous, in terms of the ranges of occu- pation, education, stage in the family cycle, participation in social organizations, and leisure time activities. A distinctly "suburban" set of characteristics was not discerned. Comparisons of the three subdivisions did not reveal differences in characteristics or "styles of life," based on different location in the Lansing suburban area. Differences that were present were related to the occupational criterion for selec- tion of subdivision. When respondents were compared on the basis of occupa- tional category (blue collar or white collar), some expected differences were revealed—-white collar respondents had moreeduca- tion, moved more often, and belonged to more voluntary groups. However, income levels did not differ significantly, contrary to expectations. In "style of life" variables, similarity was exhibited. Gary W. King As the process of urbanization continues in this country, the suburbs will probably experience even greater population in- creases as they continue to provide residential locations for the growing number of middle-income people. This study indicates that while tract suburbs of comparable house values are becoming more heterogeneous in terms of occupation, education, and possibly religious and ethnic background, styles of life are similar. SELECTED PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WHITE COLLAR AND BLUE COLLAR RESIDENTS IN THREE SUBURBAN SUBDIVISIONS By , \ Gary W King A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and Anthropology 1965 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A study of this kind is the result of a large number of contributions and ideas, impossible to acknowledge individually. I therefore wish to issue a blanket statement of thanks to teachers, colleagues, and staff personnel for their stimulation and cooperation. Specifically, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Professor Walter E. Freeman, for his help in all phases of the study, but particularly for his criticisms and encouragement. Professors Duane L. Gibson, Donald W. Olmsted and William H. Form also gave willingly of their time and.made constructive suggestions. my special thanks to Professor Christopher E. Sower, who was instrumental in launching my career in sociology and who has contributed to my thinking greatly. My thanks also to Professor Charles Adrian, former Director of the Institute for Community Development at Michigan State Univer- sity for financial support and interviewing personnel; to Professor M. B. John, Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at the Pennsylvania State University for time to com- plete this study; to Miss Peggy Bierly, for her assistance in pre- paring the manuscript; and to my family, for their understanding and forbearance. Finally, although they will probably never read this, I extend my profound gratitude to the respondents to this study, without whose cooperation and willingness to answer a number of rather personal questions the study would not have been possible. ii II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, PROCEDURE . General Background for the Study. Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SIGNIFICANCE OF SUBURBS, THE MYTH OF SUBURBIA . Growth of Suburbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Confusion of Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . The Myth of Suburbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . DESCRIPTION OF LANSING AND THE STUDY AREAS. . . . Description of Lansing. . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Study Areas. . . . . . . . Comparison of Subdivisions with Census Tracts . REASONS FOR MOVING TO SUBURBS . . . . . . . . . . The Push of the City. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Pull of the Suburbs . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents' Reasons for Moving .‘. . . . . . GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE . Basic Social Characteristics. . . . . . . . . Family Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Residential History . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . Church Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leisure Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes about Suburban Living . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMPARISON OF SUBDIVISIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Sociological Variables. . . . . . . . Life Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Residential Experience. . . . . . . . . . . . Social Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . Leisure Time Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER VII. VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY. COMPARISONS OF RESPONDENTS BY OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . Occupation as a Variable for Analysis. Basic Sociological Variables Life Styles. . . . . . . Residential History. . . Social Participation . . Leisure Time Activity. . Summary. . . . . . . . . SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS . . . . General Findings . . . . Results of Comparisons by Major Variables. Location of Residence. . Comparison by Occupational Category. Implications and Discussion. iv Page 109 109 113 119 119 125 129 133 137 137 139 139 1A0 lh2 1&6 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Occupations of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2. Range in House Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Lansing Population Growth, 1950—1960 . . . . . . . . . . 16 A. Growth of Lansing and Its Fringe, 1950-1960. . . . . . . 17 5. Selected Industry Groups of Employed Persons, Lansing, 1960 . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O 18 6. Occupation Groups of Employed Male Workers - Lansing, 1960 O O I O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O I 19 7. Occupation Groups of Employed Female Workers - Lansing, 1960 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 20 8. Education of the Lansing POpulation, 1960. . . . . . . . 22 9. Family Income ~ Lansing, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10. Occupations of Males - Study Subdivisions and the Census Tracts in Which They are Located. . . . . . . . . 28 10a. Occupations of Males, Classified as Blue Collar and White Collar, Subdivisions and Census Tracts . . . . . . 28 ll. MEdian Family Income - Subdivisions and Census Tracts. . 3O 12. Median House Value - Subdivisions and Census Tracts. . . 31 13. Reasons Given for Moving from First Previous Residence . A8 1h. Reasons Given for Moving from Second Previous Regidence O I O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O I O 0 0 1+8 15. Reasons Given for Choice of Home . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 16. Categorization of Reasons for Choice of Home . . . . . . 51 17. Price Category of House When Bought. . . . . . . . . . . 5A 18. Does Respondent Feel the Market Value of His House Has Changed. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a 51+ LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 19. 2o. 21. 22. 23. 21+. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 3o. 31. 32. 33. 31+. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39- How Much Does Respondent Think House Now? . . . . . . . . Family Income Category . . Occupation of Husbands . Occupation of Husbands . . Education of ReSpondents . Education of ReSpondents . Age of Respondents . . . . Number of Children at Home Age of Children at Home. . Number of Years Married. . Location of First Previous Residence . Kind of Area - First Previous Residence. NUmber of Years at First Previous Residence. Number of Moves Since Marriage . . . . Mobility Index . . . . . . NUmber of Organizations Belonged To. . I He Could Get for NUmber of Organizations in Which Participation Active " (Hquand ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I is "Quite PrOportion of Husbands Belonging to Various Types of Organizations . . . . . . PrOportion of Wives Belonging to Various Types of Organizations . . . . . . Religious Preferences of Respondents . Frequency of Church Attendance . . . . vi Page 55 55 56 57 58 58 59 59 60 6o 62 62 63 61+ 6h 66 66 67 68 68 69 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 1+0. 1+1. 1+2. 1+3 . M1. 1+5 . 1+6. 1+7. 1+8. 1+9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 51+. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59- 60. Leisure Time Preferences, Husband . . . . . . . . . . Leisure Time Preferences, Wife. . . . . . . . . . . . NeWSpaper Subscription. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Books Read in a Year by ReSpondents . . . . . Number of Magazines Regularly Received by Respondents . Magazines Received by Respondents . . . . . . . . . . Most Liked Features About Living Here . . . . . . . . . Has Respondent Given Thought to Moving from Present Addre S S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Does ReSpondent Now Have Immediate Plans to Move . . . Kind of Neighborhood Respondent EXpects to be living in, Ten Years Hence I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Estimation of How Well PeOple Around Here Know Each other I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NUmber of Families Respondent Spends Whole Afternoon or Evening with Every Now and Then . . . . . . . . . . . . Location of Respondents' Immediate Relatives. . . . . . Occupations of Husband by Subdivision . . . . . . . . . Occupations of Husband by Subdivision . . . . . . . . . Education of Husband, by Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . Education of Wife, by Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . Age of Husband, by Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Children, by Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . . Family Income, by Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . Working Wives, by Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 70 71 73 7h 75 76 77 78 79 8O 81 81 82 86 87 88 88 89 89 9o 91 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 61. 62. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7o. 71. 72. 73. 7h. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79- 80. PrOportion of Income Applied to Debts, by Subdivision. . Proportion of Income Applied to Savings, by Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Moves, by Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Years Married, by Subdivision. . . . . . . . Mobility Index, by Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . Place of Previous Residence, by Subdivision. . . . . . . Place of Second Previous Residence, by Subdivision . . . Closeness of Nearest Relative, by Subdivision. . . . . Reason for Moving from Last House, by Subdivision. . . . Reason for Choosing Present House, by Subdivision. . . . Number of Organizational Memberships (Husband and Wife) by Subdivision I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Frequency of Visiting Relatives, by Subdivision. . . . . Number of Civic Organizations (Husband and Wife), by Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Union Membership (Husband), by Subdivision . . . . . . . Professional Organizations (Husbands), by Subdivision. PTA Membership (Husband), by Subdivision . . . . . . . . Wife Mere Active Socially, by Subdivision. . . . . . . . First Preference (Husbands), Leisure Time.Activities, by SubdiVisiOnS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Number of Books Read in a Year (Husband), by Subdivision Estimate of How Well Neighbors Know Each Other, by Subdivision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 91 92 93 93 911 9A 95 96 97 97 99 100 101 102 102 103 10h 10A 105 106 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 81. 82. 83. 81+. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93 . 9h. 95. 96. 97. 98. How Many Neighbors Known by Name, by Subdivision. . . . Number of Neighbors Families Contacted in a Day, by SubdiViSiOn I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Education of Husband, by Husband's Occupational Category. Education of Wife, by Husband's Occupational Category . . Age of Husband, by Husband’s Occupational Category. . . Number of Children, by Husband's Occupational Category. . Family Income, by Husband's Occupational Category . . . Working Wives, by Husband's Occupational Category . . . . Proportion of Income Applied to Debts, by Husband's Occupational Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preportion of Income Applied to Savings, by Husband’s Occupational Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Moves Since Marriage, by Husband's Occupational category I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Number of Years Married, by Husband's Occupational cat e 8 Cry I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , Mbbility Index, by Husband's Occupational Category. . . . Place of Previous Residence, by Husband's Occupational category I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Kind of Area of Previous Residence, by Husband‘s Occupa- tional Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Years at Previous Residence, by Husband's Occupational Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Closeness of Nearest Relative, by Husband’s Occupational category I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Reason for Moving from Last House by Husband's Occupa- tional Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Page 106 107 113 11A 115 116 117 117 118 118 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 121 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 99- 99a. 100. 101. 102. 103. 10h. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 111. 112. Page Reason for Choosing Present House, by Husband's Occupational Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12h Reason for Choosing Present House, by Husband's Occupational Category (Collapsed). . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Number of Organizational memberships (Husband) by Husband's Occupational Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Number of Organizational Memberships (Husband and Wife) by Husband's Occupational Category . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Number of Memberships in Civic Organizations (Husband and Wife) by Husband's Occupational Category . . . . . . 127 Union Membership (Husband) by Husband's Occupational Category . . . . . . . . O C . . . . . . . . O . . C C C l2 7 Membership in Professional Organizations (Husband) by Husband's Occupational Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 PTA Membership (Husband), by Husband's Occupational Category . . . . . . . . . . O O . O . . . . . . . . . . 128 Is Wife More Active Socially, by Husband's Occupational categOI'y I O O O C O O O I C O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 128 First Preference (Husband), Leisure Time Activity, by Husband's Occupational Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Number of Books Read in a Year (Husband), by Husband's Occupational Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Number of Magazines Received Regularly, by Husband's Occupational Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Number of Magazines Received Regularly, by Occupational category C C O I O O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 131 Names of Magazines Received by Respondents, by Occupa- tional Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Estimate of How Well Neighbors Know Each Other, by Husband's Occupational Category. . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TAEHE Page 113. Neighbor Families Contacted in a Day, by Husband' s Occupational Category. . . . . . . 13h 11h. Neighbors Known by Name, by Husband’ 3 Occupational Category . . . . . . . . . . . . 13% LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Location of Study Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 xi CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, PROCEDURE As cities have become increasingly dominant in the American social and economic structure, urban peripheries have experienced tremendous population increases, eSpecially since world War II. Results from the 1960 census show that this growth of metropolitan rings is continuing, even accelerating. Since they are such a prominent feature of the American landscape, suburbs have been the object of study by various observers. These can be divided into at least two groups. On the one hand are the journalists, critics of manners, and moralizers; on the other, the social scientists. writers in the first category have often been severely critical of "suburbia," generalizing from a rather limited and perhaps outdated sample of the total range of suburbs. They have characterized suburban life as homogeneous, escapist, conformist, culturally barren, matriarchal, monotonous, detached from the rest of society, and intellectually deadening. "Other directed" types and "organization men" in grey flannel suits live there and spend many hours each day commuting back and forth to the city. To some observers, suburbs are split-level traps; to others they are the fulfillment of the American dream. In any case, they do offer visible evidence of the decentraliza- tion of American cities, both large and small. The other suburban observers, the social scientists, have found a rather wide range of differences among suburbs. There are suburbs of $80,000 homes and suburbs of $8,000 homes. There are residential suburbs, industrial suburbs, and mixed suburbs. There are also differing descriptions of the quality of suburban life. There are those who suggest that the choice of a suburban residen- tial location indicates a subscription to "the suburban way of life." There are others who feel that the quality of life in suburbia is varied, not a homogeneous entity, and the way one lives, in the suburbs or out, is more a function of social class standing in the larger society than of suburban location. This dissertation reports on a study designed to investi- gate the relationship between residential location, occupation, and behavioral characteristics of suburban residents. The study also contributes additional basic data on some of the ever-growing number of Americans who have chosen to live in what is referred to in a very imprecise manner as "suburbia." General Background for the Study1 The population growth of suburbs in the years succeeding the Second World war has been explosive. Urban peripheries contain an ever-growing proportion of the United States' peOple. Suburbs are an undeniably important phenomenon on the national scene, being part of the shift from rural to urban preponderance in pOpulation. This shift has ramifications for many sectors of the nation's existence; economic, political, and cultural, to name a few. 1This section presents only the broad outline of the study orientation. More detailed discussion and documentation appear in later chapters. 3 In the first few years after the war, a number of studies were made of this new migration (from city to suburb), which indicated that suburbs were homogeneous, mostly inhabited by people of substan- tial means, who were very much alike in their behavior patterns, value- orientations, and abdication of their responsibilities for the pro- blems of the urban areas where they made their living, did their shopping, and upon which they relied for other services. The studies placed suburbanites in the upper-middle, or possibly lower-upper classes, to use warner's terms. As time passed and the move to the hinterlands became a more general pattern, later studies discerned more heterogeneity in suburbs. The kinds of peOple to be found there were more varied. ”Working class" suburbs were found to exist. .A distinction was made between residential suburbs, industrial suburbs, and satellite cities, and the functions of suburbs in relation to the larger metropolitan area were discussed. Investigations into the behavior of suburbanites have resulted in the identification of two major influences in the way suburbanites live: (1) their location of residence, and; (2) their social class standing. These two factors have been used as explanatory variables in several analyses of suburban dwellers. The present study utilizes these two factors as independent variables, in an effort to compare their relative importance in relation to the social character- istics and patterns of behavior ("style of life") of the residents of three suburban areas in the metropolitan areas of a middle-sized mid- western city. There is evidence in the literature that, nationwide, there are demographic differences between peOple who live in suburbs, people who live in cities, and rural people. It has also been dem- onstrated that there are differences between the inhabitants of different suburbs. There are suburbs offering very low-cost housing and there are luxurious suburbs of expensive homes. But the studies have not been able to effectively distinguish whether position on the socio~economic scale or different residence location with peers has a greater influence on behavior patterns —- how a person or family lives its life. Therefore, in the present study, an effort was made to select suburban areas in which, by the index of occupation, different social classes lived side by side -— a pattern which is more common in mass- produced suburban housing than strict segregation along class lines. Further, the effort was made to cancel out the effects of gross differ- ences in income, insofar as possible, by choosing areas of similar house value. Then, it should be possible to compare the social characteristics and patterns of behavior of representatives from different social classes (having different class ideologies, presumably), with roughly the same monetary resources to work with. It should also be possible to com- pare the three suburbs with each other On the same bases, to discover whether each suburb has a gei§£_of its own, the effects of which would be selectivity over immigrants and similar behavior among residents. Statement of the Problem In previous suburban studies, analysis of behavior patterns has resulted in the identification of at least two important associated factors: (1) location of residence (indicative of value orientations in choice of area and house, also related to behavior in conformity with standards of the area), and: (2) social class standing(related to class ideology, with associated value orientations, behavior patterns, attitudes). The problem of this study is to assess the importance of these factors, using data gathered in residential suburban areas chosen on the basis of the occupational composition of the heads of households. The analysis will then consist of a comparison of the three subdivision areas for differences, in terms of a number of standard sociological characteristics, plus other variables assumed to comprise "style of life." Then further comparisons will be made using occupa- tion as the independent variable. Procedure Many studies of suburbs in the past have been essentially case studies, subjecting one suburb to analysis, and then generalizing to a universe of suburbs. In this study, threesnburban residential subdivisions will be compared. Preparation for the study began by the choice of six_resi- dential subdivisions in the Lansing suburban ring,in which house values were roughly similar. It was felt that holding this factor constant would tend to also hold income to as similar a level as possible. At that point, the residents were asked just one question: 6 what is the occupation of the head of the household? From these six subdivisions, three_were chosen. They will be identified throughout as Haslett, South Lansing, and Edgemont ( or H., S., and E. Descrip- tions of the three areas appear in Chapter III). The percentage of those in white collar occupations is highest in Haslett. In the other two subdivisions, the blue collar percentages are the highest of any of the six originally selected subdivisions. (See Table 2) There are other subdivisions in the Lansing area in which the blue collar occupations predominate, but the house values are not high enough. This factor was considered important enough so that these two particular subdivisions were used. In South Lansing, there is close to an even occupational split, and in Edgemont, #0 per cent are classified blue collar. Table 1 shows this occupational distribution. Table l Occupations White Collar Blue Collar N2, Percent N9, Percent Haslett us 88.2 6 11.8 Edgemont 32 60.u 21 39.6 South Lansing 29 53.7 25 no.3 To verify equality of house value, tax valuations were con- sulted and the aid of the local assessor enlisted. Table 2 shows the range in market values for 1961. Table 2 Range in House Values Haslett $lh,6oo to 19,500 Edgemont lu,uoo to 18,600 South Lansing 13,500 to 16,600 A map was drawn for each subdivision and all the houses were numbered. Using a table of random numbers, a random sample was drawn for each. An interview schedule was constructed, designed to procure data applicable to the problem posed. In an effort to cull unproduc- tive portions, change wording, and otherwise improve the instrument, the interview schedule was pretested three times. The interviewing was done in the summer and fall of 1961 by staff members of the Ihstitute for Community Development; 193 interviews were completed. The resulting data were coded, punched on IBM cards, and processed On IBM tabulating equipment. CHAPTER II SIGNIFICANCE OF SUBURBS. THE MYTH 0F SUBURBIA Growth of Suburbs In the United States pOpulation, metrOpolitan areas have come to be increasingly dominant. In 1900, metropolitan centers claimed less than a third of the total pOpulation; by 1950, over half (59 per cent) lived in these areas.1 In addition, the metropolitan centers have grown about 50 per cent faster than non-metropolitan areas.2 By 1960, the areas characterized as metropolitan by the Bureau of the Census contained 63 per cent of the country's pOpula- tion.3 Within metropolitan areas, the growth in the "rings" surround- ing central cities has been most rapid. In the nation as a whole, these rings (around the 212 standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas) grew four and half times as fast as the cities they surround, during the period from 1950-1960.1+ This rate surpasses even their growth from 19h0 to 1950, when the rings grew two and a half times as fast as the metropolitan areas.5 1Donald J. Bogue,"Urbanism in the United States, 1950," American Journal of Sociology, 60 (March, 1955), p. #80. 2Ibicl. 3Leo F. Schnore, "Municipal Annexations and the Growth of Metropolitan Suburbs, 1950-1960," American Journal of Sociology, 67, (January, 1962), p. H07. 1‘Ibid., p. h06. Schnore shows that when metropolitan annexa- tion of surrounding territory is taken into account, the rings have grown over forty times as fast as the central cities, using 1950 boundaries as the basis for comparison. 5Bogue,‘;p. cit., p. A81. 9 From 1950 to 1960, increases in the population of the 212 SMSA's accounted for 8h per cent of the national growth; the central cities increased population 10.7 per cent, while peripheries increased h8.6 per cent. Suburban rings accounted for almost two thirds of metropolitan pOpulation growth.6 In these rapidly growing metropolitan rings are included a variety of kinds of pOpulation concentrations. The Bureau of the Census employs county lines in its delineation of SMSA'S, using criteria relating to employment in central city, population density surrounding the central city, and other measures of economic and social integration.7 Included in SMSA'S are the central city, or cities, with population of 50,000 or more, incorporated and unincorporated suburbs, areas of mixed II land uses sometimes called "fringe, and relatively open country. Confusion of Concepts In sociological studies, the uses of the concepts "suburb" and "fringe" have resulted in some confusion. Dobriner says: In the past two decades, there have been attempts to conceptualize the emerging outer rings of the metro- politan area. Ecological theory, consequently, seems oriented toward the analysis of (l) the spatial pattern- ing of central cities, and (2) the spatial patterning of the metropolitan center which includes both the central city and the tributary areas. In this regard, the two concepts currently most employed are "suburbs" 6Henry S. Shryock, Jr., "Some Results of the 1960 Census of the United States," Rural Sociology, 27 (December, 1962), pp.u60-h72. 7U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. 8. Census of Population, 1960, Number of Inhabitants, Michigan, Final Report PC (1)—-2MA, (Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961). 10 and "rural-urban fringe." The term "suburban" can easily be traced back to the works of Adna F. weber and undoubtedly was used much earlier in the pOpular rubric of cities. However, the concept of the rural-urban fringe can be traced back scarcely twenty years in the sociological literature. Unfortunately, there have been few attempts to distinguish between these two terms.8 Traditionally, sociologists have employed a model (some- times only implicitly) of a rural-urban continuum along which can be placed any specific residence category, or even concrete population aggregation. Suburbs are viewed as only slightly less urban than cities, and the rural-urban fringe is viewed as a transitional zone, where rural and urban land uses are in competition.9 8William Dobriner (ed.), "Introduction," The Suburban Community (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958), p. xvii. 9cf. J. Allan Beegle and Widick Schroeder, Social Organization in the North Lansing Fringe, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 251 (September, 1955), p. 8 ff. For other interpretations of the "rural-urban fringe" concept see (for use of the rural-urban continuum notion) Rural Sociology, 18 (June, 1953), "The Sociological Significance of the Rural-Urban Fringe," contributions by Charles E. Lively: Stuart Queen and David Carpenter; and walter McKain; Jr., and Robert Burnight. Other treatments include: Richard.A. Kurtz and Joanne B. Eicher, "Fringe and Suburb: .A Confusion of Concepts," Social Forces, 37 (October, 1958), pp. 32—37; walter Firey, Social Aspects to Land Use Planning in the Country-City Fringe: The Case of Flint, Michigan. .A. E. S. Special Bulletin 339, (Michigan State College, June, 19E6); Welter T. Martin, The Rural-Urban Fringe: .A Study of Adjustment to Residence Location, (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1953); Solon T. Kimball, The New Social Frontier: The Fringe, A. E. S. Special Bulletin 360, (Michigan State College, June, l9h9); Samuel W. Blizzard and William F. Anderson, Problems in Rural-Urban Fringe Research: Conception and Delineation, The Pennsylvania State College Progress Report No. 89, (State College, Pennsylvania, N0vember, 1952); Edward T. Pryor, Jr., "Urbanization in the Rural-Urban Fringe" (Unpublished M..A. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1961); Engene E. Kachtik, “A Study of Community Orientation in a Rural—Urban Fringe Area" (Unpublished M. A. thesis, University of Arizona, 1958); Richard A. Kurtz, "Resident Adjustment Patterns in the Rural-Urban Fringe," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959). 11 A review and summary of the fringe literature is not an objective here. However, Kurtz among others, has protested that many "fringe" researchers have carried out their studies in areas more properly classified as "suburban" than "fringe":LO This argument may have some validity, but is not considered of primary moment in this study. Suburbs have a long history in the United States, beginning with the construction of railroads, especially in the latter l8h0's, which facilitated commuting. The development of other means of rapid transit, such as trolleys, buses, and electric trains, hastened the process of suburbanization. With the advent of the automobile, greater areas of urban periphery have become available for residence purposes, often at the expense of farmland.11 Sociologists have attempted to define the concept "suburb," also. More often, the term is used in some operational manner with popular usage determining the designation of any particular area. The United States census does not use suburbs as a category, and there is 12 no universally agreed upon definition. Douglass, in an early commen- tary on suburbs, defined the term "suburban' as follows: loKurtz,_‘p. cit., p. 170. 11For a discussion of the outward—moving process, see William H. Whyte, Jr., "Urban Sprawl," in The Editors of Fortune, The Exploding Metropolis, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958), pp. 115-139. 12Edmund de S. Brunner and Wilbur C. Hallenbeck, American Society: Urban and Rural Patterns, (New York: Harper Brothers, 1955), p. 255 ff- 12 That belt of pOpulation which lives under distinctly roomier conditions than is the average lot of city people, but under distinctly more crowded conditions than those of the adjoining open country, is suburban, whether lying within or outside the city.13 This definition, using density of population as a rough criterion, would include virtually all of the SMSA counties outside the central cities, and is a rather non-discriminating definition. Density of population, however, is a criterion used by others, including the Bureau of Census, to delineate urbanized areas. The fact of commuting is also used as a determinant of "suburb," especially in pOpular literature. The image developed is of the harassed father leaving the household to ride the 8:15 to the city early in the morning, returning late at night, exhausted. He is a stranger to his wife and children, and the suburban areas becomes a matriarchy, albeit a child-dominated matriarchy, during the day.lh It is difficult to see how the fact of commutation makes a given area suburban; even within large cities, substantial numbers of workers commute back and forth from their place of employment, often taking as much time as those considered suburbanites because they live outside the city limits. Kurtz and Eicher have set up rather definite criteria for differentiating between fringe and suburb; their dimensions are loca- tion, land use characteristics, growth and density, occupations of 13Harland P. Douglass, The Suburban Trend, (New York: The Century Company, 1925), p. 8. lIJ'See John Keats, The Crack in the Picture Window (New York, Ballantine Books, 1957); A. C. Spectorsky, The Exurbanites, Phila— delphia: Lippincott, 1955), plus numerous other examples in magazines and periodicals. l3 inhabitants, and governmental structure.15 Even this battery of characteristics, when applied to the empirical case, have overlapping requirements; one man’s Suburb can be another man's fringe. Given this diversity of treatment of these concepts, no attempt will be made to label the areas under examination in this study in a strict taxonomic sense. They will be described in some detail below; the reader may think of them as possessing essentially suburban characteristics, as does the author. The NWth of Suburbia Both Berger16 and Dobrinerl7 have summarized at some length what they call the "myth of suburbia" and "images of suburbia," respectively. They refer to the large number of journalistic, literary, and impressionistic writings on the highly visible and significant topic of the suburbs which have appeared since World war II. These writings have established a number of images, stereo- types, and representations about suburbs which, if not false for specific places, are extremely misleading for suburbs in general. Some of the elements of the myth are as follows: 15Kurtz and Eicher, op. cit., page 35. 16Bennett M. Berger, WOrking Class suburb (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960), pp. h-l3, passim. 1 7William M. Dobriner, Class in Suburbia (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Spectrum.Books, 1963), pp. 5-27, passim. 1h 1. Suburbs are "homogeneous." 2. They are predomiuntly middle-class developments; some are upper middle-class. 3. They are characterized by conformity. One of the worst fears of the suburbanite is being too different from his fellows. A. They are inhabited by younger executives and middle-management workers in large corporations who view their residences as temporary; they are on the way up, both in business and in social status. 5. Most residents are in the early stages of the family cycle; they have young children, with another on the way. 6. The social life of suburbia is frenetic, both for adults and for children. They are over-organized and on the run from one associational meeting to another. Examples of the organizational commitments are PTA, bridge clubs, local improvement groups, little league, dancing lessons, scouts, and business organizations. There is a great deal of entertaining and cocktail drinking. 7. Life is child-centered. During the day, there are no men present; they are in the city earning a living, having commuted by train or automobile. 8. The suburbs are the center of a religious revival; church attendance has increased tremendously. 9. Along with the suburban residence goes a change in politics from Democratic to Republican, if the change is necessary. Both authors (Berger and Dobriner) show that many of these elements are false, exaggerated, or distorted, so it will not be necessary to demolish the myth anew. But many of the images and stereo- types persist in the pOpular literature. What is not fully realized is that there are many different kinds of suburbs in urban rings, and 15 the popular image is based on predominantly white collar, middle-class, rather atypical examples.18 The numerous commentators have not hesi- tated to generalize from these examples to "suburbia." .Although it is not the primary intent in this study to re-examine the "myth," some of the data will relate to certain of its elements. Where appropriate, corroboration or contradiction will be pointed out. 18 Two of the most famous are Park Forest, Illinois, and Forest Hill Village, Ontario, in William H. Whyte, Jr., The Organization Man, .(Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957) and John R. Seeley, Alexander Sim and Elizabeth Loosley, Crestwood Heights (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956), respectively. The magazine articles and reports are too numerous to footnote. However, there seems to have been a slackening off of these articles in the early 60's; the suburbs may have yielded their profit and are to be abandoned for the space race or something else sensational. However, the damage has been done; the images persist and have become incorporated into American folklore. 16 CHAPTER III DESCRIPTION OF LANSING AND THE STUDY AREAS In this chapter, the three study subdivisions will be described. But before this description is presented, it seems appro- priate to review some characteristics of Lansing, the central city. Description of Lansing The city of Lansing is located in the northwest corner of Ingham County, in south central Michigan. Its 1960 pOpulation was 107,807, an increase of 17 per cent over the 1950 figure.1 It is the central city for the Lansing Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, which includes Ingham, Clinton, and Eaton Counties, and had a 1960 pOpulation of 298,9h9, a 22.A per cent increase since 1950. (See Table 3) Table 3. Lansing Population Growth, 1950—1960. SMSA Urbanized Area City 1960 298,9h9 169,325 107,807 1950 euu,159 13h,052 92,129 Increase, 1950-1960 Number 5h,790 35,273 15,678 Percent 22.h 26.3 17.0 1The data used for the description of Lansing were obtained from the census reports for Michigan: U. S. Bureau of the Census, g. S. Census of Population, 1960 Number of Inhabitants, Michigan, General PCpulation Characteristics Michigan, and General Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC (1) - 2AA, 2MB, and 2uC. (washington, D. C., U- 3. Government Printing Office, 1961). l7 Lansing has been called a typical midwestern medium-sized industrial city. Beegle and Schroeder, in 1955, made the following statement: "With the exception of Michigan State University to the east, Lansing possesses characteristics similar to numerous industrial centers of comparable size in the North Central States.2 East Lansing and Michigan State University help swell the population of the Lansing urbanized area to 169,325 of which 61,518 were classi- fied as living in the "fringe" outside the central city in 1960. (See Table A). Table h. Growth of Lansing and Its Fringe, 1950—1960. Fringe City 1960 61,512 107,807 1960 (Using 1950 boundary) 73,28u 96,0ul 1950 H.923 92,129 Increase, 1950-1960 1960 boundaries 19,589 Eh6.7%; 15,678 (17.0%) 1950 boundaries 31,361 7u.8% 3,912 ( 4.2% Since Lansing is the capital of Michigan, a high proportion of its working force is classified as white-collar; in 1960, the figure was #8 percent. Lansing is also the location of the Oldsmobile Division of General Motors, a Fisher Body Plant, and Reo Motors. Twenty-seven 2J..Allan Beegle and Widick Schroeder, Social Organization in the North Lansing Fringe,.A.E.S. Technical Bulletin 251 (Michigan State University, September, 1955), p. 9. 18 percent of all employed persons were working in manufacturing in 1960; almost two thirds (65.5 percent) of these were employed in the manu- facture of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (see table 5). Of all employed males, almost half (h7.6 percent) were classified as craftsmen, foremen, skilled and unskilled workers (See Table 6). Of employed women, A0.6 percent were classified as working at clerical and kindred occupations, reflecting the need for office workers by agencies of state government, industry, and Michigan State University (See Table 7). Table 5. Selected Industry Groups of Employed Persons, Lansing, 1960. SMSA Urbanized Area City No. % N0. % NO- % Agriculture 5,617 5.1 376 .6 10h .2 Construction 6,609: 6.0 3,630 5.6 2,u25 5.7 Manufacturing 29,50h 26.8 15,685 24.1 11,519 27.1 Motor vehicles and vehicle equipment 17,129 15.5 10,108 15.5 7,5u6 17.7 Educational Services l2,uu9 11.3 9,826 lu.3 2,9u3 5.9 Total Employed 110,278 65,103 h2,562 Although the city of Lansing gained population in the 1950- 60 intercensal decade, it also made several annexations of territory and people, which accounted for much of the increase. If the 1950 population is compared with the 1960 figure, using the 1950 boundaries, the population increase is only h.2 percent, instead of 17 percent. 19 (see Table A). Even at that, the city itself did not lose popula- tion as did many Michigan cities, such as Battle Creek, Detroit, Jackson, and Muskegon. were dismayed by the census figures, since some state aid funds are distributed according to population counts. In these cities, local government officials Table 6. Occupation Groups of Employed Male Workers — Lansing, 1960. SMSA Urbanized Area City No. % No. %5 No. % Total 7u,138 100.0 M2,122 100.0 27,006 100.0 Professional, Tech- nical, kindred 9,522 12.8 7,2u0 17.2 3,239 12.0 Farmers, farm mgrs. 3,699 5.0 102 .2 28 0.1 Managers, offici- als, proprietors 6,909 9.3 u,u09 10.5 2,627 9.7 Clerical and kindred h,863 6.6 3,310 7.9 2,211 8.3 Sales 5,u65 7.u 3,717 8.8 2,339 8.7 Craftsmen, fore- men, etc. 1h,777 19.9 7,836 18.6 5,685 21.1 Operative and kindred 16,303 22.0 8,315 19.7 6,133 22.7 Private house- hold 73 0.1 52 .1 Mo .1 Service u,9uo 6.7 3,518 8.h 2,1u7 8.0 Farm laborers, foremen 1,366 1.8 17h .h #3 .2 Laborers 3,076 u.l 1,503 3.6 1,015 3.8 Occupations not reported 3,1u5 u.2 1,9u6 u.o 1,u69 5.h 99.9 100.0 100.1 The urbanized fringe around Lansing gained population from 1950 to 1960 at the rate of h6.7 percent, almost three times the growth 20 rate of the central city. If the 1950 boundaries are used to cancel out the effects of annexation, as Schnore has suggested, the growth rate is 7h.8 percent, almost 19 times that of the central city (See Table 5.) So it is apparent that Lansing's peripheries have experienced extensive population increases. Table 7. Occupation Groups of Employed Female Workers - Lansing, 1960. -1 — SMSA Urbanized Area City No. % No. %’ No. % Total 36,140 100.0 22,981 100.0 15,556 100.0 Professional, Tech- nical, kindred 5,336 14.8 3,577 15.6 1,772 11.4 Farmers, farm mgrs. 135 .h 5 --* -- --* Managers, offici- als, proprietors 1,1h2 3.2 737 3.2 511 3.3 Clerical and kindred 13,143 36.4 9,179 39.9 6,309 40.6 Sales 2,901 8.0 1,797 7.8 1,372 8.8 Craftsmen, fore- men, etc. 495 1.4 269 1.2 210 1.3 Operative and kindred 2,894 8.0 1,351 5.9 1,020 6.6 Private house- hold 2,375 6.6 1,274 5.5 819 5.3 Service 5,650 15.6 3,584 15.6 2,549 16.4 Farm.laborers, foremen 183 .5 12 --* 8 --* Laborers 203 .6 92 .4 56 .4 Occupations not reported 1,683 4.7 1,104 4.8 930 6.0 100.2 99.9 100.0 *Less than one tenth of one percent. With respect to education, the median number of school years completed for persons over 25 is quite high in the Lansing SMSA and in 21 the fringe areas (see Table 8). This number is pushed up by the presence of the University and the state capital. The state figure is 10.8 years completed; for the Lansing SMSA it is 12.0; for the central city, 11.9; for the urbanized fringe, 12.7. For East Lansing itself, the location of Michigan State University, the median number of school years completed for persons over 25 is 15.8, the highest figure for any urban place of 10,000 or more in the state. There are still sub- stantial numbers of persons in the city of Lansing with little school education (See Table 8). Thirty-two percent of the males have com- pleted 8 years or less of schooling; for females, the figure is 27 percent. On the other end of the continuum, 10.5 percent of the males have completed A years or more of college as have 5.8 percent of the females. The median family income for all Lansing families in 1959 was $6477. The SMSA figure was $6177, reflecting the generally lower cash income level in rural areas. For the fringe, the median family income was $686k. The highest percentage in any one category was 1h.7 percent, in the $5000-$5999 group. (See Table 9) To summarize, Lansing, with a 1960 population of 107,807, is the central city for a medium-sized Standard MetrOpolitan Statistical Area of 298,949. The capital of Michigan, it is located in the central portion of the southern Lower Peninsula. It is a fairly typical mid- western industrial city, being a center for manufacturing and various agencies of state government. Its fringe areas have grown rapidly, but helped by annexations of contiguous territory, the city also has gained population. Table 8 . Education of the Lansing POpulation, 1960 22 SMSA Urbanized Area City Males over 25 No. % No. %V No. % None 527 .7 345 .8 284 1.0 1-4 years 1,963 2.7 1,096 2.6 866 3.1 5-6 years 3,200 4.3 . 1,672 4.0 1,383 4.9 7 years h,352 5.9 1,938 4.7 1,465 5.2 8 years 14,236 19.4 6,453 15.6 5,005 17.9 1-3 years HS 14,400 19.5 7,497 18.1 5,647 20.2 4 years HS 18,561 25.1 10,072 24.3 7,595 27.1 1—3 College 6,813 9.2 4,751 11.5 2,840 10.1 4+ 9.772 13.2 7,556 18.3 2,931 10.5 100.0 99.9 100.0 Total 73,824 41,380 28,016 Median number of school years completed 11.6 12.2 11.7 Females over 25 No. % No. % No. % None 455 .6 306 .7 237 .8 1-4 years 1,311 1.7 755 1.7 653 2.1 5-6 years 2,548 3.3 1,512 3.4 1,278 4.1 7 years 3,229 4.2 1,631 3.7 1,263 4.0 8 years 12,940 16.7 6,341 14.3 5,029 16.0 1-3 years HS 16,293 21.1 9,022 20.3 6,933 22.1 4 years HS 26,003 33.5 14,873 33.5 10,818 34.4 1—3 College 8,626 11.1 5,532 12.4 3,387 10.8 4+ 6,025 7.8 4,465 10.0 1,816 5.8 100.0 100.0 100.1 Total 77,530 44,457 31,414 Median Number of shhool years completed 12.1 12.2 12.0 Median, both sexes 12.0 12.2 11.9 23 Table 9. Family Income - Lansing, 1960. SMSA Urbanized Area City No. % No. 777 No. % A11 Families 73,269 41,237 27,551 Under $1,000 2,244 3.1 986 2.4 693 2.5 1,000-1,999 3,743 5.1 1,646 4.0 1,140 4.1 2,000-2,999 4,552 6.2 2,169 5.3 1,525 5.5 3,000-3,999 5,508 7.5 2,739 6.6 1,776 6.4 4,000-4,999 8,012 10.9 4,249 10.3 2,894 10.5 5,000-5,999 11,021 15.0 5,890 14.3 4,049 14.8 6,000-6,999 8,781 12.0 4,996 12.1 3,559 12.9 7,000-7,999 7,327 10.0 4,222 10.2 2,980 10.8 8,000-8,999 5,752 7.9 3.404 8.3 2.367 8.6 9,000-9,999 4,326 5.9 2,772 6.7 1,883 6.8 10,000-14,999 8,746 11.9 5,811 14.1 3,614 13.1 15,000-24,999 2,406 3.3 1,738 4.2 811 2.9 25,000 and over 851 1.2 615 1.5 260 .9 Median Income (Family) $6.177 $6.588 $6.577 When compared to the state average, its people are relatively well educated; the median family income is also higher than the state average. Description of the Study Areas The three subdivisions selected for study are located at the outer regions of the urbanized area (See Map). The Haslett subdivision is in the northeastern sector. The subdivision designated as South Lansing is at the southern edge of the city, and Edgemont is to the west. The three are similar in many ways. .As noted, the house values are constant, fluctuating within limits, and real estate values 24 are uniform enough in the three areas so that appearances are similar. All three are exclusively residential subdivisions, developed and built in the 1950's; the houses are relatively new. All are of the contemporary anonymous ranch style, with a few split—level models in the Haslett subdivision. The houses and lawns are almost universally well-kept; there is an operative norm of neatness and clipped lawns. An exception was noted in South Lansing. One lawn was marked by barren areas and weeds with an older automobile parked in it. Both the owners of this house and the neighbors were uncomfortable about this situation; the neighbors more than the owners themselves, although they realized they were the subject of some discussion in the vicinity. The observer in these subdivisions would see many evidences of children. Their equipment and paraphernalia are scattered about and groups of them congregate on the sidewalks and in the front yards. The interviewing was done in the late summer and early fall; the areas changed character markedly when school sessions resumed. All three study areas are tied into the central city and the region economically, for jobs, goods, and services. It was expected and discovered that there were many social ties also, orienting peOple to the city of Lansing. While it is difficult to empirically document, it is felt that these three areas are typical of many suburban enclaves in and about the City of Lansing. There is, of course, a wide range of sub- division types, in terms of house and lot prices, occupations and in- comes and other social characteristics of inhabitants. But the three subdivisions studied may approach the modal category in the universe 25 uaoaafiaoesm Serum no .8333 A enema wmmmg spoon mania \\ . as. games ofimfiq swam acoaompm 8.33m D gag oxen 26 of all such areas around Lansing. The Haslett study area is farthest from the central city of the three subdivisions studied, being about 10 miles from downtown Lansing. It is located northeast of East Lansing, and is part of the unincorporated village of Haslett, in Meridian Township. The subdivision was named Lakeview Heights by its fanciful develOper, be- cause a small Lake is visible about one-half mile away, if conditions are just right. The lake plays no part in the life of the residents however, being quite small, dirty, and unfit for recreational purposes. The village of Haslett is the location of one grocery store, a drug store, a branch office of an East Lansing Bank, and an automobile dealer. The subdivisions residents are thus oriented to East Lansing and Lansing for many goods and services. There is no industry in the immediate area; most people commute to either East Lansing or the cen- tral city for employment. The South Lansing subdivision is the only study area within the city limits. The area was annexed by Lansing shortly after it was developed in the 1950’s. Its location makes it close to the automotive plants in Lansing, which are also on the south side of the city. Its residents were not aware of a subdivision name, but identified the area by street names. Its houses appear to be a bit less expensive than in the other two areas studies, but the assessor indicated that city services such as sidewalks, sewage, water, and garbage disposal, help to bring up real estate values in this area. The Edgemont study area contains homes similar to the other two. It is located on the west edge of the city, separated from the 27 city limits by an Oldsmobile jet engine plant. The location of the factory has proven to be fortunate for the residents in this school district, since it contributes a large portion of the total taxes collected. In fact, several of the Edgemont respondents indicated that one reason for their satisfaction with their homes was the com- paratively low tax rates they enjoyed. Over the past few years, the school district has stoutly and successfully resisted annexation attempts by the central city. Comparison of Subdivisions with Census Tracts Lansing is one of the cities in the United States for which census tracts have been established. These are small sections into which large cities and adjacent areas have been divided for statisti- cal purposes. Tract boundaries are established cooperatively by a local committee and the Bureau of the Census, and are generally designed to be homogeneous as possible, with respect to pOpulation characteristics, economic status, and living conditions. There still tends to be some internal variation in tracts because of the difficulty of delineating strictly uniform areas. In the present study, comparisons were made between tract data and data obtained from the samples in the study subdivisions. The comparisons were made to investigate the representativeness of the study areas and also reveal differences between census tracts. The comparisions are in terms of: (1) occupation of males; (2) median family income; and (3) median value of house. (See Tables 10, 10a, 11 and 12) 28 Table 10. Occupations of Males - Study Subdivisions and the Census Tracts in Which They are Located (Percentages). Haslett Edgemont South Lansing Tract Sub- Tract Sub- Tract Sub- MT-48 division L-34 division L—27 division Sample Sample Sample Professional, technical 24.0 40.7 19.1 20.0 11.1 20.4 Managers, offi- cials, proprie- tors 14.3 14.8 16.9 20.0 7.9 9.3 Clerical and kindred 8.9 7.4 10.7 1.8 5.3 -- Sales 13. 16.7 14.0 14.5 8.0 20.4 Craftsmen, fore- men, etc. 15.8 9.3 16.6 20.0 26.9 16.7 Operatives and kindred 10.4 -- 16.4 20.0 23.2 24.1 Private house- hold -- -- -- -- -- -- Service 6.5 3.7 4.6 -— 7.9 9.3 Laborers 4.7 -- -- -- 1.8 -- Occupation not reported, retired, students 1.7 7.5 1.7 3.6 7.9 -- N=665 N=54 N=712 N=55 N=1106 N=54 ‘. .4" a L. p. .. Table 103: Occupations of Males, Classified as Blue Collar and White "-“1Collar, Subdivisions and Census Tracts (Percentages). 1L White Collar Blue Collar Haslett Tract MT-48 60.9 37.4 Subdivision 83.3 11.1 Edgemont Subdivision 58.2 38.2 South Lansing Tract L-27 32.3 59 Subdivision 53.7 46. l' \l . J x J as .3“ d .BI’LL' 1L1; ..:.- 1.1 in Bin , .013 c aunts L1)..‘(' .801 2100‘. , u . __ ; . H 29 The tables Show that the census tracts differ rather widely on the basis of occupations but that the difference between subdivisions is even more marked. It will be recalled that the method of choosing subdivisions was such that no effort was made to pick those which were representative of the census tract in which they were located. Rather, they were picked to be roughly similar with regard to house values and incomes of their inhabitants, but to differ with regard to occupation. Thus, the percentages in the white collar occupations in the census tracts range from 40 percent to 65 percent; in the subdivisions, the range is from 54 percent to 83 percent. The difference is a bit more substantial, but the notable thing is that the percentages are larger in white-collar occupations. Presumably this is because of the requirement for approximately equal house values; more white collar workers tend to live in houses of this price. The greatest correspondence between tract and subdivision is in South Lansing. In each of the other two study areas, there was a higher percentage of white-collar occupations in the subdivision than in the census tract. (See table 10a). The suburban median family income was higher in the subdivi- sions in all three instances (See Table 11). The incomes in the Edgemont area were higher than expected, judgingtwfihouse values and the occupa- tions reported. One explanation is that although both Haslett and Edgemont had a high incidence of peOple in the white-collar occupa— tions, those in Haslett tended to be connected with the university and the state government, while more white—collar workers in Edgemont 30 were engaged in business and private practice, and thus tend to have higher incomes. The higher proportion of managers, officials, and proprietors in Edgemont supports this explanation. Table 11. Median Family Income - Subdivisions and Census Tracts. Haslett Tract MT-48 $7399 Subdivision 7999 Edgemont Tract L-34 $7989 Subdivision 8961 South Lansing Tract L-27 $6811 Subdivision 7214 The range of median house values is from $12,400 to $17,000 in the census tracts, while the range in subdivisions is from $14,700 to $15,500. The much narrower range in subdivisions indicates a measure of success in the choice of subdivisions for study. In Haslett and Edgemont, the higher median house value for the census tract indicates that there are developments containing higher—priced homes in the area, while in South Lansing, the study subdivision con- tains some of the most expensive homes in the tract. Such is indeed the case (See Table 12). To summarize, the study subdivisions vary in the degree to which they are representative of the census tracts in which they are located, in terms of occupation, family income, and house value. The 31 South Lansing subdivision appears to most nearly correspond to its census tract, except in house value. Table 12. Median House Value - Subdivisions and Census Tracts. Haslett Tract MT-48 $16,200 Subdivision 15,499 Edgemont Tract L-34 $17,000 Subdivision 15,323 South Lansing Tract L-27 $12,400 Subdivision 14,694 In all three subdivisions, median family income was higher than in the census tracts. Only one of the three subdivisions con— tained homes with higher median values than those in the census tracts. 32 CHAPTER IV REASONS FOR MOVING TO SUBURBS In attempting to understand the rapid growth of suburban areas, many writers have addressed themselves to the reasons behind individual decisions to move to suburbs. This chapter discusses this question, reviewing pertinant literature and using sample data for comparison. The Push of the City One of the frequently posited causes of burgeoning suburbs is that pe0ple are escaping undesirable conditions in cities. Probably each family's decision to live in a suburban home is the result of a variety of motivations. Brunner and Hallenbeck comment as follows: The totality of causes is doubtless as varied as the families that seek new homes. Fundamentally, they can be summed up in the statement that people come to the suburbs because the modern industrial metropolis has failed to provide for millions of pe0p1e the kinds of human satisfactions they want for themselves and their families.1 Some conditions of city life which peOple seek to avoid are crowding; the pollution of the air by industry and motor vehicles; noise; dirt; and the general hustle and bustle of the cities.2 More— over, the central city is traditionally the first stop for immigrant ethnic groups, in their slow climb to middle-class respectability. lBrunner and Hallenbeck, g2. cit., p. 260. 2Most studies of suburbs have found this escape motive for suburban residence. For example, see Wendell Bell, ”Social Choice, Life Styles, and Suburban Residence," in Dobriner (ed.), The Suburban Community, pp. 225-247. 33 Currently the immigrants are Southern Negroes and, in New York parti- cularly, Puerto Ricans. Some families move to suburbs to escape proximity to these groups. Another potent factor is urban schools. City schools are often overcrowded, some on double or part-time sessions. The curricula are, of necessity, geared to mass education, rather than to the indivi- dual. Depending on the section of the city, there is often an emphasis on vocational and technical training, to the detriment of the college preparatory program. Teachers are unable to give individual help because of large classes. Parents have little to say in the formulation of policy; a centralized, bureaucratic administration is difficult to con- tact and influence. Upon making the move to suburbia, parents often find they have traded one set of problems for another, but at least they are different.3 In his "Urbanism as a way of Life,")‘F Louis Wirth describes the social consequences of a large, dense, and heterogeneous population. He describes the segmentalization of the self which occurs, the lone- liness, alienation, and irritation which are, to him, concomitants of city life. Depersonalization, rootlesness, and lack of primary alle— giances are alleged to be characteristic of city residents. Subsequent research has Shown that extensive primary group relationships exist in cities, and are not so difficult of attainment as Wirth implied,5 3See Benjamin Fine, "Educational Problems in the Suburbs," in Dobriner (ed.), The Suburban Community, pp. 317-325. uAmerican Journal of Sociology, 44 (July, 1938), pp. 1-24. 5For example, see Robert Angell, "The Moral Integration of 34 but it is no doubt true that many people do feel lost and depersonalized in the big anonymous city. The tone of Wirth's article indicated an unstated disapproval of city life, as did the statements of others before him, such as Simmel and Toennies. These writers have used the cohesive, warm, effec- tively positive {Eyal_community as a contrast to the rationalistic, cold, impersonal 23222 center. This bias against the city is reflected in the number of sociological studies, dating from the Park school in Chicago and pre—dated by the works of Lincoln Steffens and Jacob Riis, which focus on the dysfunctional and disorganized aspects of city life at the expense of the integrative and cohesive mechanisms of urban society which do, and did, exist. An accompanying element of this bias against the city is a preference for things rural. In a clever and provocative article,6 Adolph Tomars points out several examples of these rural preferences which linger on in the most urbanized areas. One "rural survival" he cites is the desire to own one's own home. To rent an apartment in the City is to "live in somebody else’s ' even though it might be more comfortable and economical in the house,‘ long run, as many have discovered. Contributing to the attraction of suburbs is their semi- or American Cities," American Journal of Sociology, 57, Part 2 (July, 1951), pp. 1-140; Morris Janowitz, The Community Press in an Urban Setting (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952); and Joel Smith, William H. Fbrm, and Gregory P. Stone, "Local Intimacy in a Middle—Sized City," Agrican Journal of Sociology, 60 (August, 1954), pp. 276—284. 6Adloph S. Tomars, "Rural Survivals in American Urban Life," in Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb (eds.), Sociologica1.AnalysiS, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949), pp. 371-378. 35 quasi-rural nature, which appeals to the positive feelings many Americans have for rural conditions and attitudes. In addition, the city has long had connotations of sin and temptation; rural life is fresher, cleaner, more "moral" somehow. The move to the suburbs has also been inter- preted as an attempt to recapture the feelings of one‘s youth about small towns and rural life, the flavor imparted by the Saturday Evening Post covers of Normal Rockwell.7 The Pull of the Suburbs In addition to the outward push of the city, the suburb exerts appeals of its own, on several levels. Most social scientists (and others) who treat suburbs have attempted to account for their growth on the basis of their attractions. Dobriner has classified the resulting reasons into four explanatory models-~the social-psychological study of suburban person- ality structure; the value-orientation view; the social movements 8 approach; and the technological-economic view. In the first model, suburbanites are purported to possess personalities having certain needs which can only be satisfied outside 7See Anselm.Strauss, Images of the American City(New York; Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), especially pp. 167-182, pp. 244-245. 8Dobriner, Class in Suburbia, p. 61 ff. These models apply to the United States only; they probably apply to Canada also, but definitely not to other areas. In parts of Latin America, the pattern is for the more prosperous citizens to live in the center of town while the urban peripheries are indescribable slums. This arrangement is traditional and is at least partially explained by a much lower level of technological attainment. 36 the city. Suburbs attract these personality types through a selec- tive process, with other personality types being happier staying in the city. This particular model has a long history, going as far back as Douglass9 who saw suburbanites as characterized by an "aesthetic affinity" for Open living. Their needs are for independence and the quiet and Open country found in the suburbs,he said. Lundberg and associates in their pioneering study of suburban 10 emphasized the same idea. They also described the operating leisure, selection process as psychological. The two basic character traits of the suburbanite are; (1) a greater sensitivity to nature and the outdoor life, with a more recent and vivid rural heritage, and; (2) a compara— tively deep attachment to neighborhood and domestic life in the tradi- tional family pattern. More recently, Fava has explained suburban growth by invoking a similar model.11 She identified propensity toward "neighboring" as an index to the suburban personality type drawn to suburbs. She compared residents of Manhattan and of suburban Nassau County in terms of an original neighboring scale, and found suburbanites scored significantly higher, even when other factors were controlled, such as stage in the family cycle, number of children, etc. She concludes that people who 9Douglass,_p. cit., p. 34. loGeorgeA. Lundberg, Mirra Komarovsky, and Mary.Alice MbInerny, Leisure: .A Suburban Study, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934), pp. 42-50, assim. llSylvia Fleis Fava, "Contrasts in Neighboring: New York City and A Suburban Community," in Dobriner (ed.), The Suburban Community, pp. 122-131. 37 ' and cultivate inter-personal relationships are disposed to "neighbor' are drawn to the suburbs in their "quest for community." Of course, it has by no means been proved that the psycholo- gical model is correct. Dobriner states, "The one or two traits which constitute the key dimension of 'Suburban' personality -- 'privacy,’ 'neighboring,' ’independence,’ ’sensitivity to nature and the outdoor life'-—are hardly grounds for building an entire 'suburban' personality syndrome."12 The explanation for neighboring behavior may be pro- pinquity and visibility, or mutual plight, rather than personal needs or characteristics. In order for this model to be credible much more conceptualization and research is called for to identify and establish the "suburban" personality, if one really exists. Another model frequently used to account for suburban growth is the value-orientation approach, emphasizing undesirable elements of cities and the advantages of suburbia. Negative city conditions have already been discussed; more attention will be given here to the good things to be had in suburbs. Studies by martin,13 Anderson,l" 15 1116 Dewey, and Be reveal two main reasons peOple give when asked why they moved to suburbs. Suburbs are better for children (better l2Dobriner, Class in Suburbia, p. 63. 13Martin,'yp.‘g£§., p. 37. l"'W.A..Anderson, Social Change and an Urban Fringe Area (Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Rural Sociology Publication 35, February, 1953). 15Richard Dewey, "Peripheral EXpansion in Milwaukee County," American Journal of Sociology, 54 (September 1948), pp. 118-125. l6Bell, pp, cit., pp. 225-247. 38 place to raise family, more room for children to play, nicer peOple and other children, better schools, more wholesome for children, etc.), and suburbs are less congested than cities (not so crowded, cleaner, less noise, etc.) Bell in particular emphasized what he termed "familism" as a life-style orientation of families who move to suburbs. "Famie lism" means devoting time, money, and energy to facilitating family living. Such factors as marriage at an early age, a short childless period after marriage and child-centeredness are indicators of such an orientation. Bell classified 31 percent of his respondents as exemplifying pure familism in their decision to live in suburbs, and further classified 83 percent of them as giving family-oriented reasons for suburban residence. Not all investigators report these findings, however. In 18 separate studies of the Lansing fringe, Klurtzl7 and Pryor also asked why their respondents selected their present residences. Neither found reasons relating to "familism." The largest single category of reasons reported by Kurtz (52 percent) is "indication that respondent would have moved anywhere for what was wanted (best buy, this was available, etc.)."19 Pryor's largest group (32 percent) gave reasons classified as "financial (house cheap, low payments, etc.)."20 These reasons are 17Kurtz,I;p. cit. l8Pryor,_p_. cit. l9Kurtz,_“p_. cit., p. 202. 2OPryor,_p_. cit., p. 15h. 39 largely economic and do not refer to family values as such.21 It must be recognized that verbal responses from people on this issue may be superficial or may be influenced by the structuring of the interview schedule, an ever-present problem in survey research. To say, "we moved here for the children's sake," is certainly a socially acceptable answer, as compared with, "we moved here to get away from the Negroes," when the latter may have been just as potent a factor in the decision. PeOple also tend to answer with a question, i.e., con- cerning motivations for a decision which took place some time ago, on the basis of their experience since that time. .A respondent may say, "we moved here because the schools are better," when at the time of the move, he may not have known anything about the schools. On the other hand, he may have had some idealized conception about life in the suburbs and, after finding conditions different from what he expected, may rationalize his move and say, "Its better for the children." It is difficult to have complete faith in these verbalized reasons for a move to the suburbs. In addition, there is some evidence of disenchantment with the good life in suburbia; indications that some migrants who went there feel that ardous commuting, problems of home and yard upkeep, and daytime isolation of the family outweigh the advantages of suburban residence. It appears that there are negative evaluations of certain aspects of suburban life which should be considered under the framework 0f the value-orientation model. Whyte notes, with some satisfaction, E 21Of course, it is possible that Lansing suburbanites might give different answers simply because of their smaller, less densely Populated central city. There may not be nearly so much contrast in the "familistic" variables between Lansing's central city and its suburbs as between New York or Chicago and their suburbs. MO that some suburbanites in the upper-income categories, are moving back to the city, mainly for reasons of convenience.22 In his book, Stein neatly summarizes the ills of suburbia noted by Riesman, Whyte, and the Loosely group.23 The negative features of suburbs that these authors point out probably do have some effect on the satisfactions; of suburbanites. However, their criticisms sometimes seem rather excessive.2" "Suburbia as a social movement" is the title Dobriner gives to the next model;for suburban growth. The social movement quality of the suburban migration stems from the fact that there are massive and latent societal forces which are the real reasons behind the rationa- lized and verbalized responses any individual may give to a social researcher, and to himself, for his move to suburbia. 22Wi1liam H. Whyte, Jr., "Are Cities Un-American?" in The Editors of Fortune, 42. cit., p. lO—18. 23Maurice R. Stein, The Eclipse of Community (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 199-226. 2"Probably the most blatant example of excessive condemna- tion and unwarranted generalization about suburban life has been contributed by Richard E. Gordon, Katherine K. Gordon, and Max Gunther in their The Split-Level Trap (New York: The Dell Publishing Company, 1960). Starting with cases of suburbanites with mental disorders (the authors are a psychiatrist, a social psychologist and presumably a professional writer; Max Gunther is not identified), the Gordons generalize towhat they call "Disturbia." A reading of the cases readily shows that the problems faced by the patients they discuss are cer- tainly not peculiar to suburbs. Moreover, in the conclusion of the 'book, they raise their level of generalization to the whole of American society. Starting with an infinitesimal and badly skewed sample of the suburban pOpulation of one urban county in New Jersey, they end 1gp implying they have now shown us American society; they then con— ‘trast Russian society with what they have found and show us how we can improve . 1+1 Riesman25 and Whyte26 are the primary identifiers of these underlying and powerful forces. They write of shifting major societal values, of changing basic premises on which the society is based. These changes may be only vaguely perceived by an individual, but he acts under their influence, making explanations of his behavior to himself which are square with prevailing attitudes and orientations, but which do not necessarily come to grips with these larger forces. The flight to the suburbs is interpreted by these writers as revolt against contemporary industrial, bureaucratized, urbanized society. The United States has already achieved a great industrial plant; the prevailing values are now not connected with production, but consumption. we have shifted from an emphasis upon the Protestant Ethic to the Social Ethic; our basic characteristics are no longer thrift, preseverence, self-denial, and hard work, but hedonism, social approval, conformity, and leisure. No longer are we willing to put up with the pressure for decisions, the physical and mental strain of the city. Now we want the technological advantages created by this productive machine but do not want to pay the penalty of coping with city problems. The suburbs exemplify what is wrong with the society. Not caring to take up the challenges inherent in city life, the result of energy, ambition and industry, peOple head for the suburbs and try to create an idyllic life--c1ean, neat, tidy, but vacuous, meaningless, nostalgic, and lazy. Basic relationships and bases for existence are 25David Riesman, "The Suburban Sadness," in Dobriner (ed.), The Suburban Community, pp. 375-h08. 26w1me, 92. git. he now sought in the family and in the small community. The motto of the suburbanite might well be, "Back to Gemeinschaft." Wood’s theme is also this "quest for community" emphasizing disenchantment with big city governmental apparatus and a search for grass roots democracy.27 Americans have traditionally distrusted what is big--another example of a rural attitude survival--and today's cities are very large and therefore, probably corrupt. So the move to suburbia is an attempt to establish personal involvement in a governmental structure of manageable size, to once more have a voice in the political process. Wood also disapproves of this attempt to ignore and evade responsibility to the larger metropolitan ecological area. He cites the rapidly increasing number of political jurisdictions in urban areas and the fierce defense of their political autonomy by suburbs in the face of rationality and logic. In his final comment, it is easy to see that he shares the feelings of disappointment and disapproval expressed by Reisman and Whyte: That the great organizations (contemporary urban society) presents problems and challenges is not to be doubted for a moment. But that something created by the energy, wit, and morality of man should be fundamentally feared, fled from, and rejected as un- manageable is essentially inconceivable. It is incon- ceivable, at least, in a nation in which energe, wit and morality have been prized attributes, and whose history has always shown commitment to the prOposition 27Robert C. Wood, Suburbia, Its People and Their Politics (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1959). 1+3 that growth and change are beneficial. That such a nation would cherish the legggy of the grassroots is the final irony of suburbia. These writers undeniably have shown great insight into basic shifts in societal values, into unconscious motivation, and into his- torical social change. But the concepts they introduce are magnificently vague, however perceptive. The proofs they adduce are impressionistic; it is very difficult to deal in a definite fashion with the "Social Ethic" or "a revolt against industrialization." While such analyses are important speculations upon the values and attitudinal underpinnings of our society, they must remain in the realm of the unprovable. To re- use the expression, one man's revolt against industralism is another man's search for a three-bedroom house at a price he can afford to pay. The fourth explanatory model, which eschews unconscious motivations and personality needs, is the technological—economic model. In order for suburbs to develOp significantly, efficient means of trans- portation were necessary. Since the develOpment of the trolleycar lines, the railroad and more recently the automobile, suburbs have resulted. Strauss shows advertisements for suburban lots in the Chicago area which date back to the 1850's.29 Regardless of motivations, adequate techno- logy has to be present to allow for suburban growth. Now, why the great increases in the population of urban rings since WOrld War II? Schnore explains this growth in terms of economic 281bid., pp. 301-302. 29Strauss,_;p. cit., p. 23h. nu forces.3O Cities' populations have always depended on economic oppor- tunities and fluctuations. PeOple have moved from rural to urban areas for jobs. .As they have swelled the population, more employment oppor- tunities have been created; as farming has become increasingly mechanized, less labor has been required to produce farm products; the cycle con- tinues. It is no longer possible for the city to house all its residents (even though cities continue to annex more territory). Cities can grow in three ways--up (skyscrapers), in (by using up vacant land), and out. Skyscrapers are too expensive for middle and upper middle class resi- dential purposes, urban vacant land is scarce and the cost of erecting homes is prohibitive (in addition to which zoning restrictions, more profitable economic uses and scattered location make house-building difficult at best). So the city expands outward. The city becomes specialized as the economic and cultural center of the metrOpolitan area, and the suburbs take over the residential function. Among suburbs, there is also specialization. Some develop into "satellite cities" when an industry or two decides to locate there. They become integral units of the metropolitan complex. Non- basic industries are also set up in suburbs-~retailing, service, and light industry. Out-lying units set up "research parks" and vie for industries which will help shoulder the tax burden but which will not depress property values or contaminate the fresh air. In this model, suburbs serve a definite function in concert with the other parts of the metropolis. Economic forces are the basic 3OSchnore, Leo F. "The Growth of Metropolitan Suburbs," American Sociological Review, 22 (April, 1957), pp. 165-173. #5 causes for increasing specialization of ecological sub-units of the whole. It is much cheaper for land developers to mass-produce their homes in a suburban tract than to erect similar housing on scattered parcels in the city. So the farmer sells the land to the subdivider and goes to Florida, the contractor builds the homes, and another "Forest Park Hills" is created to serve the residential needs of the economic center, the city. Since World war II, on an individual level, the decision for suburbia was also most often made for economic reasons. There were not enough houses in the city, apartments were too expensive and FHA and GI mortgages were much easier to obtain for suburban housing, with a smaller down payment. In addition, suburban homes were available. Such post-war phenomena as Levittown resulted, repeated on a smaller scale all over the country. The same economic forces have been Operating since that time to perpetuate the trend. With the constant rise in living levels of the middle and "working" classes, suburban residence has become possible for a larger portion of the pOpulation. S. D. Clark identifies the same forces operating in Canada.31 He discounts the image of suburbia created by Whyte and Riesman as applicable only to a very limited number of suburbs. He distinguishes three distinct types of suburban development: (1) The early haphazard occupation of country areas by individual families ranging from the very rich to the very poor, and differing greatly also in 31S.D. Clark, "The Society of Suburbia" in William Petersen and David Matza (eds.), Social Controversy, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1963), pp. 3oh-315. M6 social values and life styles; (2) The packaged community, such as Park Forest, Illinois, conceived and developed so as to realize a particular way of life not possible in the city. In these communities, much of the structure of a society is established from the very begin- ning. Those who choose to pay for and inhabit these enclaves are usually aware of their characteristics when they move in. (3) The mass-produced houSing areas, containing by far the majority of subur- banites. These areas are ngt_definable communities and do not lend themselves to study nearly so admirably. This is no doubt the reason why they have not been studied and generalized from. Speaking of these mass-produced areas, Clark says: PeOple choose to live in a Forest Hill Village or Park Forest; they seek, and are prepared to pay for, the particular way of life that such residential areas appear to offer. But for those who move into the mass-produced housing areas, there is generally no such choice. What such peOple seek primarily is a house, and they move where they do because it is there they can find one they can afford. This is essentially as true of the person buying a $20,000 house as of one buying a $12,000 house. Though residential areas are differentiated by price, and their populations thus by income, the individual chooses simply according to his capacity to pay. .A house is being bought, not a social environment; and this characteristic of large-scale residential development means that it is a.mass market... . The failure to see the packaged suburban community in the perspective of this much more extensive kind of mass-produced housing accounts for many of the mis- conceptions concerning the nature of suburban society. There is no completely new and different kind of society created; nothing about the way suburbia develops distinguishes it from any other society.32 32Ibid, p. 309. h? PeOple are moving to suburbia because that's where the available housing is. Their range of choice is restricted by the market supply; they get what they can for their money. This technological-economic modeldeals with basic in- stitutional variables in the society. Those who advance this explanation of suburban growth do not treat the motivational and attitudinal aspects of individual decisions to move; they do not feel obliged to psychoanalyze suburbanites from a distance since economic factors appear to be a sufficient explanation. These four models of suburban growth; (1) the suburban personality; (2) value—orientation; (3) the social-movements approach; and (h) the technological-economic explanation, should be regarded as complementary interpretations of societal and structural factors which affect the movements of families. These models have been discussed at some length here, to help provide background for discussions of findings in the present study. Respondents' Reasons for Moving Tables 13 and 11+ show the range of reasons given by the suburban residents of this study for moving away from their two pre- vious residences. The questions depend heavily on accurate recall by reSpondents; the question was designed to get at the factors im- pelling them to move £52m a particular location, rather than the factors attracting them to a new location. That question was asked later. 48 Table 13. Reasons given for moving from first previous residence. Number Per Cent Bigger, better house, more room 51 31.3 wanted to buy 46 28.2 Reason connected with job 30 18.4 To leave city, deteriorating neighbor— hood, colored moving in 10 6.1 Circumstances, or high costs 6 3.7 Started college or graduated from college 5 3.1 Moved in with or away from relatives 2 1.2 Reasons connected with schools 2 1.2 Other, no information _;£l 6.7 Total 163 99.9 Table 14. Reasons given for moving from second previous residence. m ====== Number Per Cent Reasons connected with job 51 31.3 Bigger, better house, more room 25 15.3 Circumstances, or high costs 12 7.4 wanted to buy 11 6.7 Started college, or graduated from college 9 5.5 Moved in with or away from relatives 8 4.9 To leave city, deteriorating neighbor- hood, colored moving in 4 2.5 Does not apply, no information, other _J£3 26.4 Total 163 100.0 Both tables show that a high proportion moved because the individual families felt a need for more living space (34 per cent of those reSponding in Table 13, 21 per cent in Table 14). .Another potent factor was a job change that necessitated a move (20% and 49 43%). Many had been renting living space and wanted to buy a home (30% and 9%). Smaller percentages did report that undesirable con- ditions in the city were major factors in their decision to move (7% and 3%). Table 15 shows reasons given for choice of the present home; three reasons were asked for, in the order of their importance. All the respondents gave at least one reason for the selection of their homes; ninety-four percent gave a second reason, and three-quarters gave three reasons. To get the most salient reasons for choice, the question was Open-ended, but a followeup question involved handing respondents a card on which various anticipated responses were listed for selection. Table 16 lists categories of reasons for choice of home given by respondents. The largest single category is "features of this particular house and lot," —- forty percent. The next largest is "financial reasons," which included such reasons as "best house " "we got a good deal on this house," etc. Responses for the money, in these categories were similarly numerous in the second and third reasons, although the categories, "reasons relating to children," and "nice neighborhood," began to increase in proportion. Bearing in mind reservations about the complete accuracy of responses to survey research questions, still many of the answers were similar. 0f the models presented above, the technological-economic seems most applicable in this instance. The preponderance of the answers deals with what housing was available which met the needs of Table 15. m Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 1st Reason Reasons given for choice of home. 2nd Reason 50 —-— * 3rd Reason Number Per Cent Liked features of this particular house Best house for the money Stepping stone for something better Good school system Liked features of this particular lot Away from city pro- blems - noise, dirt, etc. Close to schools Liked the looks of the neighborhood and peOple Close to job Had friends, family, or relatives here Close to necessary services - groceries, etc. More space - room for children, pets, garden, etc. Close to friends in this end of Lansing Nice place for peOple to see when they visit us Close to recreational facilities, - pool, parks, etc. Other No response Total 58 1+7 13 10 7 163 35.6 28.8 8.0 6.1 4.3 mm \DU‘I l—‘N CD (IDU‘I H 1.2 1.2 1.8 99-9 163 20.2 s4 u:0\ vied FJ—J \nc3 ro 3.7 1.2 l-‘Ulm 9 18 10 lO 15 m>hlsr 163 5.5 11.0 4.3 6.1 4.9 MCI) U10 R) L» \OO\\J1 \O \O \O m Table 16. Categorization of reasons for choice of home. 51 lst Reason 2nd Reason 3rd Reason Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Features of this particular house and lot 65 39.9 42 25.8 17 10.4 Financial reasons 50 30.7 32 19.6 19 11.7 Reasons relating to children 16 9.8 27 16.6 29 17.8 Status betterment 13 8.0 5 3.1 11 6.7 Nice neighborhood 8 4.9 29 17.8 22 13.4 Convenience - job, services 6 3.7 14 8.6 22 13.4 Influence of family, friends 5 3.1 4 2.5 4 2.5 No response _;:: -- _;52 6.1 _;g2 23.9 Total 163 100.1 163 100.1 163 99.8 families, at a price within reach. Such housing is not available in the downtown areas, and the rural areas are too far removed from places of work. Of course, some people are in circumstances different from our suburban residents and d2_live in the city or in rural areas. A veritable host of values, attitudes, and economic factors are at work in the selection of residence, which may be beyond the capabilities of our respondents to articulate, Therefore, it would be misleading to say that people live in suburbs because of any single reason, although some authors come very close to uni-dimensional explanations. The responses given in this study d2 tend to support the notion that economic factors play a large part in peOple’s choice of residence. At least, responses of this nature are the most salient in the minds of respondents. This finding supports S. D. Clark's 52 comments on the motivations of those who choose to live in mass- produced housing areas. Again, the size of the central city in this study may in; fluence people's motivations for choosing suburban locations. Suburbia may mean something quite different for residents of Lansing as compared with Chicago, New York, or Detroit. The commuting distances are not so great, the contrast between developments within the city limits and those outside is relatively small. Lansing has been characterized by many of its residents, as an overgrown small town. However, it must be pointed out that not all suburbs are located around cities the size of New York, Chicago, and Detroit; the nations middle—sized cities are also experiencing rampant peripheral growth. This fact again points up the danger of generalizing from a limited sample to all of "suburbia." 53 CHAPTER V GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TOTAL SAMPLE This chapter presents additional summary data on the sample respondents; subsequent chapters present comparisons of selected vari- ables within the sample. The first section concerns basic social characteristics; occupation, education, and income. In the following sections, further data on family cycle, residential history, social participation, leisure time activity, and general satisfaction with suburban residence are examined. Basic Social Characteristics As previously noted, the most commonly used indices of social class standing are occupation, education, and income. In this study, the value of houses in the subdivisions selected for study was con- trolled, in an attempt to insure rough comparability in economic stand- ing. Variation, within limits, did nevertheless occur. Table 17 shows there was some variation in prices paid for houses. Still, eighty-six percent fell in the first three categories, with fifty-five percent of the homes costing between $14,500 and $17,500. Some of the variation was caused by the fact that the homes were bought at different times. If the homeowners' testimony can be believed, the homes have generally appreciated in value over the years, (as shown in Table 18.) Sixty-two percent of the reSpondents feel their houses have risen in value since they were bought. Only ten per cent now 54 believe their homes are worth less than $14,500 as compared with thirty-one percent who paid less than that figure for their homes. The median figure for Table 19 is $16,337 (estimated market price) compared with $15,102 for Table 17 (purchase price). It is suspected that a certain amount of Optimism is involved here, but a rise in real estate values is not unusual in the area. Table 17. Price category of house when bought. Number Per Cent No response, or renting 8 4.9 $13,000 to 14,499 51 31.3 14,500 to 15,499 44 27.0 15,500 to 16,499 33 20.2 16,500 to 17,499 12 7.4 17,500 and over _lé_ 9.2 Total Mdn. = $15,102 163 100.0 Table 18. Does respondent feel the market value of his house has changed? = 1: Number Per Cent Yes - risen 101 62.0 Yes - fallen 5 3.1 About the same 49 20.0 No response 8 4.2 Total 163 100.0 m Table 20 shows the income categories for respondents. Again, quite a range exists, but over seventy percent report annual incomes 55 Table 19. How much does respondent think he could get for house now? Number Per Cent No reSponse or renting 9 5.5 $13,000 to 14,499 16 9.8 14,500 to 15,499 20 12.2 15,500 to 16,499 49 30.0 16,500 to 17,499 32 19.6 17,500 to 18,499 12 7.4 18,500 to 19,499 10 6.1 19,500 to 20,499 6 3.7 20,000 and over __;2 5.5 Total Mdn. = 16,337 163 99.8 Table 20. Family income category. Number Per Cent $ 4,000 to 4,999 7 4.3 5:000 to 5:999 l3 8-0 6,000 to 6,999 26 16.0 7,000 to 7,999 24 14.7 8,000 to 8,999 28 17.2 9,000 to 9,999 21 12.9 10,000 to 10,999 17 10.4 11,000 to 11,999 6 3.7 12,000 to 12,999 5 3.1 13,000 or more 7 4-3 No Response '_15 . Total Mdn. = $8411 '133 100.1 between $6,000 and $11,000 (71.2%). The median figure is $8,411 com- pared with a median of $6,588 for the Lansing urbanized area. This discrepancy, with a higher figure for the sample,is consistent with the general expectation of higher income levels in suburbs than in central cities. The Lansing city median is $6,577. 56 Tables 21 and 22 show the range of husbands' occupations. In the overall sample, sixty-five percent of the respondents have occupations which are classifable as white collar, as a consequence of the level of house value used as one criterion of subdivision selec- tion (other Lansing suburban developments contain larger numbers of blue collar workers, but the market price of their houses tends to be lower). Many of the blue collar workers in the sample have occupa- tions with incomes similar to those in the white collar echelons -- police sergeant, detective, armed services personnel stationed at the University for the ROTC program, railroad brakeman, printer, time study man, tool maker, and various other skilled jobs at Lansing's automobile plants. But there are also some blue collar workers whose jobs are lower in prestige and income - truck drivers, school custo- dian, baker, watchman, and semi-skilled factory workers. Some of these have working wives; thirty-five percent of the blue collar workers' wives work, compared with twentyeseven percent of the white collar workers' wives. Table 21. Occupation of husbands. Number Per Cent Professional, technical and kindred 44 27.0 Managers, officials, and proprietors 24 14.7 Clerical and kindred 5 3.1 Sales workers 28 17.2 Craftsmen, foremen 25 15.3 Operatives 24 14.7 Service workers 7 4.3 No response, or unclassified __12 3.7 Total 163 100.0 m :— 57 Table 22. Occupation of husbands. Number Per Cent White collar 106 65.0 Blue collar 52 31.9 No information 5 3.1 Total 163 100.0 The education level of respondents is shown in Tables 23 and 24. Twenty-eight percent of the husbands in the sample have bachelor’s or advanced degrees, compared with eleven percent of males over 25 in the city of Lansing. Similarly, twelve percent of the wives in the sample have bachelor's or advanced degrees, compared with six percent of the females over 25 in the city of Lansing. This difference is also consistent with expectations. But there is con- siderable variation in the sample with respect to education. The education of over forty percent of the husbands and over sixty per- cent of the wives consists of high school training or less. The fact of heterogeneity ineducational attainment is apparent. To summarize, the indicators show the suburban sample to be generally in a higher social Class position than Lansing city residents, when median figures are considered. However, there is a great deal of variation within the sample in terms of these indicators. Variations between and within the three subdivision areas will be discussed at greater length in Chapter VI. Table 23. Education of respondents. 11: Husband Wife Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Less than 8th grade 1 .6 -- -- 8th grade 7 4.3 2 1.2 Some high school 12 7.4 15 9.2 Graduate from high school 49 30.0 85 52.1 Some college, business or vocational school 44 27.0 41 25.2 Bachelor's degree 27 16.6 17 10.4 Master's degree 14 8.6 2 1.2 Ph.D.; M.D. 4 2.5 —- -- No Information __J5 3.1 __;l .6 Total 163 100 1 163 99 9 Table 24. Education of respondents. m Husband Wife Number Per Cent Number Per Cent High school or less 69 42.3 102 62.6 Some college, business, or vocational school 44 27.0 41 25.1 Bachelor's, advanced degrees 45 27.6 19 11.7 No information 5 3.1 1 .6 Total 163 100.0 163 100.0 a Family Cycle The ages of sample respondents, the number of children at home, and ages of children at home are given in Tables 25, 26, and 27. Table 28 shows the number of years married. Seventy-five percent of the males and eighty-five percent of the females are forty or under; 59 only two and one-half per cent of the husbands and one percent of the wives are over sixty. Table 25. Age of respondents. Husband Wife Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 20 - 3O 33 20.2 50 30.7 31 - 35 48 29.4 46 28.2 36 - 40 41 25.2 43 26.4 41 — 45 20 12.2 11 6.7 46 - 50 6 3.7 3 1.8 51 - 55 5 3.1 4 2.5 56 - 60 1 .6 3 1.8 61 and over 4 2.5 2 1.2 No information __;i .1 __;l .6 Total 163 100 0 163 99.9 Table 26. Number of children at home. Number Per Cent None 12 7.4 1 22 13.4 2 58 35.6 3 44 27.0 4 19 11.7 5 4 2.5 6 2 1.2 7 1 .6 8 _- __ 9 or more __;1 .6 Total 163 100.0 Almost one quarter of the respondents have been married less than seven years (23.3%). Forty-nine percent have been married between 6O eight and fifteen years; only eight percent more than twenty years. Table 27. Age of children at home. Number Per Cent A11 under 5 23 14.1 Some under 5, some older 69 42.3 All 5 - 12 29 17.8 Some 5 - 12, some teenagers 17 10.4 All teenagers 9 5.5 Other, or no children 16 9.8 Total 163 99.9 Table 28. Number of years married. ==========r_ Number Per Cent Less than one year -- —- 1 - 2 years 3 1.8 3 - 4 years 8 4.9 5 - 7 years 27 16.6 8 - 10 years 33 20.2 11 - 15 years 47 28.8 16 - 20 years 18 11.0 21 - 30 years 8 4.9 31 - 50 years 5 3.1 No information 14 8.6 Total Mean = 12.3 years 163 99.9 m 1 == As expected from this age distribution, many of the children are rather young. Eighty—five percent of the families have children twelve years old or younger. Fourteen percent have only children below five years of age. Of those ten percent who have no children, some are young couples in the very early stages of family life, and 61 some are older couples whose children have grown up and started their own families. Again, a diversity is present. The largest family encountered had nine children. This was a Mexican family in South Lansing, whose presence in the subdivision was a source of wonder to the family members themselves (and to the interviewer) and a potential threat in the eyes of other householders in the same block. Most families were not so large. Ninety-five per— cent of the families had four children or less; the largest single percentage had two children (35.6%). The mean number of children (at home) for the entire sample was 2.42. The majority of respondents then, are pursuing a familistic 1 .Many are at the style of life, as Greer and others use the term. beginning or in the middle of their child-bearing years, but there are also substantial percentages who are in the later stages of family life, in which the children are teenagers or have departed from the parental home. Suburbia is not the exclusive habitat of the young and fecund. Residential History All three of the subdivisions were less than six years old at the time the data were collected, so a description of long-time movement patterns within them is impossible. But it is apparent that the migration into these areas is centrifugal; over three-quarters of the residents moved from somewhere else in the Lansing area (Table 29). An additional sixteen per cent came from other parts of Michigan. lScott Greer, The Emerging City (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), pp. 31-32, 71-72. I’fik 62 Respondents were also asked what kind of an area they had lived in previously. Two-thirds had lived in a city (mostly Lansing or Detroit) and fifteen percent had come from another suburb (Table 30). Table 29. Location of first previous residence. Number Per Cent Lansing area 123 75.5 Detroit area 2 1.2 Rest of Michigan 25 15.3 Out-0f-state 10 6.1 No information 3 1.8 Total 163 99.9 Table 30. Kind of area - first previous residence. Number Per Cent City 108 66.3 Suburb 24 14.7 Open Country 6 3.7 Small Town 12 7.4 Nfilitany Base or College Campus 10 6.1 No information 3 1.8 Total 163 100.0 m A substantial number of the sample had also lived in the Lansing area in the second previous residence (37.4%), but the number of migrants from the rest of Michigan and from out-of—state increased (39.8% combined). Over half lived in a city during that time, and ten percent lived in another suburb. Farther than two moves back, the 63 number responding gets smaller and smaller, as many of the family units were not yet formed. Table 31. Number of years at first previous residence. Number Per Cent Less than 1 year 20 12.2 1 — 2 1/2 years 58 35.6 3 - 4 1/2 years 34 20-9 5 - 7 1/2 years 24 14.7 8 - 10 years 14 8.6 ll.- 20 years 5 3.1 21 - 45 years 3 1.8 No information __5_ 3.1 Total Mean = 4.4 years 163 100.0 m The respondents were also asked hOW'many family moves they had made Since marriage. The results, Shown in Table 32, reveal that the modal category was two moves per family, while the mean was 3.18. This number depends a great deal, of course, on the number of years the family has been a unit or in what stage in the family cycle most families happen to be. An index number was then constructed, by dividing the number of years married by the number of family moves. The resulting figure can serve as a mobility index, and it also re- presents the number of years at each residence (see Table 33). While the median is 3.84 years at each residence, the range is great; over thirty-four percent of the sample report residence of five years or more between moves. In this measure also, family cycle position is a major factor; there is a tendency to move frequently in the first 64 years of marriage and then settle down, with longer tenure in each residence. The relative newness of the subdivisions is another contributing factor in making the index numbers lower. It would be interesting to return to the same areas in ten or fifteen years and find out how many of the original families remained. Table 32. Number of moves Since marriage. Number Per Cent None 4 2.5 l 26 16.0 2 41 25.2 3 30 18.4 4 28 17.2 5 l9 ll-7 6 4 2.5 7 2 1.2 8 or more 7 4.3 No information __J§ 1.2 Total Mean = 3.18 163 100.2 Table 33. Mobility index; (Number of years married 1 number of moves. The numbers refer to years at each address.) Number Per Cent Less than 1 4 2.5 1.01 - 2 15 9.2 2.01 - 3 33 20.2 3.01 - 4 26 16.0 4.01 - 5 13 8.0 5.01 - 6 19 11.7 6.01 - 7 10 6.1 7.01 - 8 10 6.1 Over 8 18 11.0 No information _£E5 9.2 Total Mdn. = 3.84 163 100.0 ========= 65 Social Participation AS stated above, the "myth(s) of suburbia" have already been rather effectively shattered, so it will not be necessary here to give particulars on the misconceptions promulgated by previous studies on the formal and informal social activities in suburbs.2 It is suffi— cient to note that suburbs have often been represented as beehives of social activity, with activities ranging from car pools to morning coffee gatherings, to church activities, to neighborhood and block get-togethers, to the ubiquitouscocktail party, to a whole array of political, civic, and charitable participation on the local level, as pointed out by Robert Wood. Berger found in his "working-class suburb," that no such feverish activity pattern was exhibited there; seventy percent of his subjects belonged to no clubs, formal organizations or associations at all -- and only eight percent belonged to more than one. By far the most significant leisure time activity was television watching.3 The Lansing respondents were also asked questions on parti- cipation in formal and informal groups. (Tables 34 through 37 contain summaries of these responses.) Table 34 Shows that husbands belong to more organizations than wives; the median figure is 1.9 organizations for husbands, 1.6 for wives." Overall, eighteen percent of the 2For such particulars, see Berger, op; cit., pp. 54-59. 31b1d-, pp- 59, 75. 1‘This difference might be accounted for by husbands' union membership, which is nominal in most cases. See Table 43. Berger's figures did not include union membership; most of his sample belonged, although their rate of attendance at union meetings was quite low. 66 Table 34. Number of organizations belonged to. Husband Wife Number Per Cent Number Per Cent None 29* 17.8 46 28.2 1 47 28.8 42 25.8 2 36 22.1 32 19.6 3 24 14.7 24 14.7 4 17 10.4 9 5.5 5 or more __1_0_ 6.1 .19 6.1 Total Mean = 1.9 (Husband) = 1.6 (Wife) 163 99.9 163 99.9 *Figure includes three households in which there was no husband present. Table 35. Number of organizations in which participation is "quite active" (husband). Number Per Cent None 126 77.3 1 27 16.6 2 7 4.3 3 __;3 1.8 Total 163 100.0 husbands and twenty-eight percent of the wives belong to no organiza- tions at all. When "Quite active" participation is the variable (Table 35), the figure for husbands grows to 77 percent who are quite active in 32 organizations. Seventeen percent are active in one organization, leaving only six percent who are "quite active" in as many as two organizations. The pattern seems Similar to the rate of organizational membership found by Berger in his working-class 67 suburb, despite the preponderance of white collar workers, among whom the literature indicates a higher rate of participation in voluntary organizations and associations.5 The listing of organizations and membership percentages given in Tables 36 and 37 Shows the highest rates of membership are for the P.T.A., professional organizations, and groups whose primary function is recreation. It is apparent that these respondents are not fervent joiners and grass—roots participators. Table 36. PrOportion of husbands belonging to various types of organizations. ml— Percent who belong Union 19.0 .Athletic or Outdoor Clubs 17.2 Professional Organizations 26.4 P.TLA. 34.4 Fraternal Groups 13.4 Civic or Service Clubs 12.9 Veterans Groups 6.7 Church Groups 16.6 Card Club, other "social" 11.7 Other 8.0 (N = 163) Church Membership When asked to express a religious preference, over two- thirds classified themselves as Protestants. (Table 38, 68% for husbands, 75% for wives), and less than one-fifth are Catholic. 5For documentation of this expectation, see William Erbe, "Social Involvement and Political Activity: .A Replication and Elabora- tion,? American Sociological Review, 29 (April, 1964), p. 199 n. 68 Virtually the whole sample indicated some religious preference or other. Table 37. Proportion of wives belonging to various types of organiza- tions. Percent who belong Union 1.8 Professional Organizations 3.7 P.T,A. 46.0 Fraternal Groups 6.7 Civic or Service Clubs 14.1 Church Groups 31.3 Card Club, other "social" 29.4 Other 7.4 (N = 163) Table 38. Religious preferences of respondents. Husband Wife Number Per Cent Number Per Cent No Preference 14 8.6 7 4.3 Protestant 111 68.1 122 74.8 Catholic 30 18.4 31 19.0 Jewish 2 1.2 2 1.2 Other 2 1.2 1 .6 No response 4 2.5 -- -- Total 163 100.0 163 99.9 as: =f 1===== When asked about the frequency of church attendance, however, (see Table 39), only Slightly over half could be called regular church- goerS. (Every Sunday" or '2-3 times per month"-- 52% for husbands and 55% for wives). This disparity seems to be consistent with the general 69 finding in other studies that large number of Americans identify with churches of various denominations, but do not take an active part in religious activities. Interviewers suspected that respondents were rather generous in their representations of the frequency of church attendance, but this general feeling could not be documented. Table 39. Frequency of church attendance. Husband Wife Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Every Sunday 55 33.7 60 36.8 2-3 times per month 24 14.7 29 17.8 Once a month 16 9.8 22 13.4 "Occasionally" 23 14.1 19 11.7 Frequently in winter, little in summer 10 6.1 8 4.9 Not at all 26 16.0 19 11.7 No response 9 5.5 __j§ 3.7 Total 163 99.9 163 100.0 === Leisure Time Respondents were given a card on which were listed many different kinds of leisure time activities. They were asked to list their first three preferences in order of choice, for both the husband and the wife (see Tables 40 and 41). The leisure time categories deserve some discussion. The literature on suburbs indicates that there are many do-it-yourself types living there, either by choice or by economic necessity -- as a hobby, or as a,means of having improvements that would otherwise be out of reach financially. The first three categories refer to this sort of 70 Table 40. Leisure time preferences, husband. ========== Leisure Time lst Preference 2nd Preference 3rd Preference .Activities Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Participant sports 35 21.5 32 19.6 18 11.0 Home maintenance and improvement 34 20.9 19 11.7 10 6.1 TV watching 26 16.0 29 17.8 24 14.7 Gardening 18 11.0 15 9.2 12 7.4 Thinking activities 12 7.4 10 6.1 7 4.3 Spectator sports (live) 10 6.1 23 14.1 12 7.4 Leisure Specialties 6 3.7 3 1.8 l .6 "Social? recreation 6 3.7 10 6.1 15 9.2 Homecraft 4 2.5 3 1.8 4 2.5 Educational activi- ties 4 2.5 2 1.2 4 2.5 Commercial recrea- tion 2 1.2 4 2.5 11 6.7 "Cultural" activi- ties 2 l.2 3 1.8 5 3.1 Local recreational automobile travel -- -— 2 1.2 14 8.6 No response ._Ji 2.5 ._18 4.9 _J§§ 16.0 Total 163 100.2 163 99.8 163 100.1 ===== T activity: home maintenance and improvement, gardening, and "home craft," the latter referring to furniture-building, cabinetry, and home workshop hobbies. views to distinguish between television viewing by the family only, or with guests, but later this distinction was abandoned. other people in for an evening to watch television are over. TV watching is next; an attempt was made in the early inter- The days of inviting almost universal ownership of television sets, people apparently can get enough advertising at home without having to go out for it. With the Spectator sports refers to live rather than TV Spectating -- baseball, football, basketball, hockey, etc. Participant sports include 71 the above, plus hunting, fishing, golf, bowling (a widespread form of recreation, particularly in the winter), swimming, skiing, etc. Table 41. Leisure time preferences, wife. E Leisure Time lst Preference 2nd Preference 3rd Preference .Activities Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Tv watching 38 23.3 30 18.4 15 9.2 Gardening 28 17.2 13 8.0 10 6.1 Home maintenance and improvement 20 12.2 10 6.1 5 3.1 "Social" recreation 19 11.7 28 17.2 14 8.6 Homecraft 14 8.6 9 5.5 10 6.1 Thinking activities 14 8.6 20 12.2 9 5.5 Participant sports 13 8.0 17 10.4 20 12.2 "Cultural" activi- ties 5 3.1 5 3.1 4 2.5 Commercial recrea- tion 5 3.1 9 5.5 9 5.5 Leisure specialties 3 1.8 3 1.8 5 3.1 Spectator sports (live) 2 1.2 7 4 3 6 3.7 Educational activi- ties l .6 2 1.2 2 1.2 Local recreational automobile travel -- -- 2 1.2 15 9.2 No response __;l .6 __§. 4.9 _39| 23.2 Total 163 100.0 163 99.8 163 99.9 == "Cultural" activities is a summary category for attendance at plays, the university lecture-concert series, and trips to museums, planetariums, and the opera. Social recreation includes bridge parties and clubs, church activities, formal visiting, business entertainment, and such esoteric things as chamber music groups and quilting parties. Going to movies, restaurants, bars and cabarets, or going dancing is called commercial recreation; educational activities include 72 adult education courses at the University or in Lansing, vocational courses, correSpondence courses and the like. The category thinking activities could be a puzzler. It represents an effort to classify such pursuits as reading, doing puzzles, and expands somewhat to include bird watching, walking, and even listening to music. Leisure Specialties refer to hobbies, which are not necessarily oriented to improvement of the house, grounds, or interior furnishings. They include photography, hi—fi building, and collections -- coins, stamps, match book.covers, etc. Driving around means local automobile travel as recreation. Since the respondents were simply asked to list preferences, the data do not yield a quantitative estimate of the amount of time spent on the different categories. For example, "participant Sports" rates high as a preferred leisure time activity, in many cases because a respondent belongs to a bowling league and bowls three games a week in the winter. He enjoys it greatly and lists it as his number one preference. His television watching time probably exceeds his bowling time six-or-seven fold, but his preference gets listed under participant Sports. Notwithstanding this difficulty, we utilized preferences rather than asking respondents to estimate the percentage of hours of leiSure time Spent in the various activities, feeling that the validity of the responses would be about the same in either case. we also expected some correspondence between preferences expressed and actual leisure time behavior, even though the correspondence might not be perfect. Husbands in the sample ranked home maintenance and imppovement and participant sports highest; wives, on the other hand, chose TV 73 watching, gardening, and "social" recreation. "Cultural" activities and educational activities ranked low in both groups. Contrary to expecta— tions, both homecraft and leiSure Specialties ranked low. Women's sewing was placed in homecraft which increased its share somewhat, with wives, but our sample does not seem to consist of hobbyists to any great extent. At this point, the problem of preferences again comes up; perhaps respondents do quite a bit of this sort of thing, but prefer doing other things. In addition to the above categories of leisure time activi- ties, reading habits of respondents were explored. Table 42 Shows news- papers subscriptions of respondents. The Lansing State Journal has achieved almost blanket coverage in our sample - ninety-eight percent. AS in so many middle—sized cities, Lansing has only one newspaper. Forty-four percent also subscribe to a second newspaper, thirty-four percent taking a Detroit paper, with nine percent subscribing to some other paper -- a home town paper in many cases. Table 42.. Newspaper subscription. ====== Number Per Cent Subscribes to only one paper 88 54.0 Subscribes to two papers 71 43.6 Lansing State Journal 159 97.5 Other first paper 2 1.2 Detroit paper 56 34.3 Other second paper 14 8.6 Table 43 Shows the number of books read in a year by respon- dents. About one-third of the entire group had read no books in the 74 previous year, with sixty-five percent of the men and fifty percent of the women having read Six or less books (excluding technical occupa- tion-connected reading). At the other extreme, seven percent of the husbands and nine percent of the wives stated they had read over fifty books in the previous year. Seventeen percent belong to book clubs of assorted kinds, and one respondent (one of those who read over fifty books) maintains an informal paperback swapping arrangement with large cardboard boxes of books changing hands periodically. There are some veracious readers in this section of suburbia, but the majority appear to be oriented in other than literary directions in their leisure time. Table 43. Number of books read in a year by respondents. Husband Wife Number Per Cent Number Per Cent None 63 38.7 49 30.0 1 - 5 43 26.4 34 20.9 6 - 10 10 6.1 22 13.4 11 - 15 10 6.1 8 4.9 16 - 20 8 4.9 5 3.1 21 - 50 16 9.8 28 17.2 Over 50 11 6.7 15 9.2 No response __2. 1.2 __i§ 1.2 Total 163 99.9 163 99.9 Table 44 Shows the extent of magazine subscription for respondents; two-thirds get two to six magazines regularly. The magazines received are listed in Table 45. Life, Good Housekeeping, Ladies’ Home Journal, Readers’ Digest, and Better Homes and Gardens lead the list, with ngpers', Atlantic Menthly, and Saturday Review 75 enjoying only very limited pOpularity. Twenty—seven households (17%) receive either only one magazine regularly or none at all. Table 44. Number of magazines regularly received by respondents. Number Per Cent None 13 8.0 1 14 8.6 2 27 16.6 3 23 14.1 4 26 16.0 5 17 10.4 6 17 10.4 7 E 4.9 8 2.5 9 or more _;Ei 8.6 Total 163 100.1 Attitudes About Suburban Living When asked, "What features about living here do you like the most?" reSpondents showed general satisfaction with suburban living (Table 46). Many stressed that they liked the neighborhood and the people in the subdivision; this feature held up for all three choices. Others stressed convenience, closeness to schools and services. A great many responses were in terms of the house and lot. Very few responses_had to do with status-seeking or conspicuous consumption. These features may have been present but one does not readily verbalize this type of satisfaction in American society. When asked what features were disliked, over one-third did not even reply (38%). Only twenty-four percent mentioned as many as two facets of their residential living as being unsatisfactory. 76 Table 45. Magazines received by reSpondents. Number Per Cent Life 52 31.9 Ladies’ Home Journal 52 31.9 Readers' Digest 50 30.7 Saturday Evening Post 46 28.2 Better Homes & Gardens 45 27.6 Time 29 17.8 McCall's 29 17.8 Look 28 17.2 Redbook 28 17.2 Good Housekeeping 21 12.9 Children's Magazines 19 11.7 True 18 11.0 Parents 18 11.0 Popular financial magazines 17 10.4 Other home magazines 16 9.8 Other sports magazines 16 9.8 Popular Mechanics, etc. 14 8.6 Coronet 14 8.6 Religious Nbgszines 14 8.6 Professional journals 13 8.0 Other news magazines 13 8.0 Sports Illustrated 9 5.5 Field & Stream. 9 5.5 Argosy 9 5-5 National Geographic 8 4.9 Movie and TV magazines 8 4.9 Other women’s magazines 8 4.9 Cosmopolitan 6 3-7 True Story, etc. 4 2.5 Scientific American 3 1.8 Harpers l .6 Atlantic Monthly 1 .6 Saturday Review -- -- Others not specified 18 11.0 Often, the complaints had to do with the houses, most usually that they were too small. In many cases, families who mentioned this difficulty had had additions to their families since their arrival and, aside from the fact that their families were growing, they had no complaints. 77 No respondents indicated that they felt they were regimented, forced to conform, or in danger of losing their individuality by virtue of their suburban locations. Of course, these reactions are not readily verbalized either. Table 46. Most liked features about living here. lst Feature 2nd Feature 3rd Feature Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Like the neighborhood and the people 35 21.5 38 23.3 21 12.9 Close to schools 32 19.6 7 4.3 4 2.5 Like features of this particular house 20 12.2 11 6.7 9 5.5 Good school system 17 10.4 14 8.6 15 9.2 More space - outdoor living, pets, children 14 8.6 12 7.4 10 6.1 Away from problems of city - noise, dirt, etc. 12 7.4 7 4.3 11 6 7 Have friends, family, who live here 10 6.1 15 9.2 5 3.1 Close to job 3 1.8 4 2.5 8 4.9 Nice place for peOple to see when they visit us 3 1.8 5 3.1 2 1.2 Stepping stone for something better 3 1.8 8 4.9 3 1.8 Close to necessary services - groceries, etc. 3 1.8 17 10.4 19 11.7 Like features of this particular lot 1 '.6 1 .6 2 1.2 Close to friends in this end of Lansing l .6 3 1.8 4 2.5 Close to recreational facilities - pool, parks, etc. -- -- 8 9 5 3.1 Other 4 2.5 -- —- 2 1.2 No reSponse 5 3.1 13 8 O 43 26.4 163 100.0 163 10 S3 C) Total 163 9 . \O a) 78 Fifty-five percent have given some thought to moving from their present addresses (Table 47). Again the largest number of reasons given for such contemplation had to do with inadequate space in the house (34%). Eleven percent more would like to have a "better" house. The other major reason was that a move would probably be necessary because of job changes or completion of educational train- ing (18%). Table 47. Has respondent given thought to moving from present address. Number Per Cent Yes 91 55-8 No 71 43.6 No Response ._;1 .6 Total 163 100.0 The interviewers found that many of these suburbanites like to keep abreast of the housing market in the Lansing area as a hobby. They are always thinking about moving. .A common Saturday and Sunday recreational pattern is to bundle the kids into the car and ride around looking at houses. If they feel they can get a better home for a good price, they will put up a "For Sale" sign at their own house, hoping to peddle it before making any commitments. One of the Haslett residents has had a "For Sale" sign in his yard for over two years. Nobody is willing to pay his price, so he stays on. This man is not seriously discontented with his residence. Such an attitude seemed typical of many who said they contemplated a change of address. 79 When the respondents were asked if they now had immediate plans to move, only eight percent answered in the affirmative (Table 48). Of these thirteen reSpondents, four said they would move when their present house was sold (which would indicate a lack of immediacy about the move), three had changes of employment which forced a move, and five were moving to bigger houses. Overall, the respondents seem very well pleased with their suburban locations. Table 48. Does reSpondent now have immediate plans to move? Number Per Cent Yes 13 8.0 No 150 92.0 Total 163 100.0 ReSpondents were asked to look ahead to the future, which proved difficult in many cases, and were also asked what kind of a neighborhood they would expect to be living in "ten years from now." Almost half said "right here," or in a similar suburb (Table 49). Seventy-two percent envisioned living in some type of suburban area, while only six percent thought they might be living in a city. Fifteen percent thought they would probably be living farther out in the country, anticipating that they would feel too crowded before ten years hence. Questions were asked about neighborhood interaction. As indicated, many peOple liked the friendliness of their subdivisions. It was found that this estimation was based primariLy on relation~ ships with immediate neighbors, usually not more than four or five 80 Table 49. Kind of neighborhood respondent expects to be living in, ten years hence. Number Per Cent Right here, or similar suburb 75 46.0 Bigger house, suburban area 13 8.0 Better suburban neighborhood 29 17.8 Small town 4 2.5 City 9 5.5 Farther out in country 24 14.7 No response 9 5 5 Total 163 100.0 other families. Table 50 shows answers to the question, "How well do people around here know each other?"6 Ninety-three percent It I! H I replied "fairly well, quite well, or 'very well." But when asked how many families they sometimes spend a whole afternoon or evening with, only fifteen percent Specified as many as five or more (Table 51). Fifty-three percent mentioned only one, two, or three, So, one's immediate neighbors apparently become the basis for generaliza- tion on the friendliness of the whole subdivision. This may not be an inefficient method of assessment, if the majority find their neighbors congenial and pleasant, as most seem to. Social relationships within kinship groups are an important factor in the interaction patterns of these suburban residents. Sixty- 6The ambiguous "around here" was used intentionally to avoid forcing peOple to define their "neighborhood," "area of inter- action," or some other term. Most respondents did not ask for clarification from the interviewers, but answered in terms of immediate neighbors . 81 Table 50. Estimation of how well peOple around here know each other. Number Per Cent Not at all 1 .6 Not so well 7 4.3 Fairly well 58 35.6 Quite well 54 33.1 Very well 39 23.9 No response or don't know 4 2.5 Total 163 100.0 Table 51. Number of families respondent spends whole afternoon or evening with every now and then. Number Per Cent No response or none 38 23.3 One 24 14.7 Two 40 24.5 Three 23 14.1 Four 14 8.6 Five 11 6.7 Six 5 3.1 Seven or more __ii 4.9 Total 163 99.9 four percent of all respondents indicated that they had relatives in the Lansing area (Table 52); twenty-one percent more had relatives in the state. Over ninety percent visit their relatives regularly, sixty-six percent once or twice per month or oftener. Thirty—seven percent visit relatives as often as once a week. 82 Table 52. Location of ReSpondents’ immediate relatives. Number Per Cent No response or no relatives 5 3.1 In Lansing area 104 63.8 In Detroit area 4 2.5 Other Michigan 30 18.4 Out of state 20 12.2 Total 163 100.0 Summary Following are some general statements about the sample. 1. The sample exhibits the expected higher average socio- economic level when compared with Lansing residents. However, there is a great deal of internal variation. 2. There are many young families in these three subdivisions with young children. 3..A large prOportion of the respondents have moved to their present homes from elsewhere in the Lansing area. 4. Social participation in formal organizations is fairly low; these suburbanites do not appear to be great joiners. 5. About two-thirds are Protestants and about one-fifth are Catholic. .All are white; if any Negroes have attempted to buy in the area, they have apparently been discouraged. 6. The most frequently mentioned leisure time preferences are participant Sports (mostly bowling), television watching, gardening, and home maintenance. Males and females differed somewhat in these preferences. 83 7. These suburbanites appear to be satisfied with their suburban residences, by and large. There are some complaints about size of homes as families grow in size, but otherwise, the respondents say they live in a "nice neighborhood" surrounded by "nice peOple." Analysis in the next two chapters will be based on internal com- parisons of the data by the major variables of place of residence, and occupational category. 84 CHAPTER VI COMPARISON OF SUBDIVISIONS Location of residence is the independent variable for analysis in this chapter. There is ample precedent for assuming that different behaviors, characteristics, and patterns of living are associated with residence in different kinds of areas. Fava, as noted in Chapter IV, has suggested that there is a process of selectivity operating which makes certain types of people gravitate to suburbs.l Bogue has identified demographic differences between.&flnutanites and inhabitants of cities and rural areas.2 The whole notion of the rural-urban continuum is based on the idea that peOple at different points along the scale can be 3 identified by their varying norms, values, and behavior patterns. Vidich and Bensman have noted behavior and attitudes peculiar to lSylvia Fleis Fava, "Contrasts in Neighboring: New York City and a Suburban Community," in Dobriner (ed.), The Suburban Communit , pp. 122-131. 2Donald Bogue, "Urbanism in the United States, 1950, " Ameri- can Journal of Sociology, 60 (March, 1955), pp. 471- 486. 3For example, Neal Gross, "Sociological Variation in Con- temporary Rural Life," Rural Sociology, 13 (September, 1948), pp. 256- 269; Irving.A. Spaulding, "Serendipity and the Rural- Urban Continuum," Rural Sociology, 16 (March, 1951), pp. 29- 36; John L. Haer, "Conserva- tism- Radicialism and the Rural- Urban Continuum," Rural Sociology, 17 (December, 1952), pp. 343- 347; and Otis Dudley Duncan, "Community Size and the Rural-urban Continuum," in Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (eds.), Cities and Society (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), 35 45. For a criticism of this conceptualization, see Richard Dewey, "The Rural-Urban Continuum: Real but Relatively Unimportant American Journal of Sociology, LXVI (July, 1960), pp. 60- 66. 85 residents of their "small town."" Berger found that the residents of his "working-class suburb" were different in characteristics and behavior from the resi- dents of suburbs reported in previous studies.5 In a study of a suburban school district, it was found that different voting behavior and different sociological attributes were associated with subdivi- sion and non-subdivision residence even within the same suburban area.6 In the present study, respondents were compared according to their subdivision of residence, to investigate similarities and differences in social characteristics and variables associated with "style of life.? The criteria for selection of the three subdivisions will be recalled. They are similar in house value and in their dependence on the central city for employment and for goods and services. They are different in the occupational categories of their residents. Has- lett has the lowest percentage of workers in blue-collar occupations (12 percent), Edgemont is next (40 percent), and South Lansing has 1’”Arthur J. Vidich and Joseph Bensman, Small Town in Mass Society (Princeton, New Jersey: The Princeton University Press, 1958). 5BennettM. Berger, Working-Class Suburb (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960). 6Gary W. King, walter E. Freeman, and Christopher E. Sower, Conflict over Schools: A Sociological Analysis of a Suburban School Bond Election (East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Community Development, Michigan State University, 1963). 86 the highest percentage (46 percent). It has been noted that, given the restrictions on house values, this contrast is probably as great as could be found. Basic Sociological Variables A more detailed presentation of occupation in the three subdivisions is given in Table 53, using the classification system of the U. S. Census. The table shows the large numbers of professionals in Haslett, many of these being University professors and employees of state government. Operatives and kindred workers are about equally Table 53. Occupations of husband by subdivision. Occupations H S E Total 1. Professional, technical and kindred 22 11 ll 44 H 2. Managers, officials and proprietors 8 5 ll 24 3. Clerical and kindred 4 -- l 5 4. Sales workers 9 11 8 28 5. Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred 5 9 ll 25 6. Operatives and kindred -- 13 ll 24 7. Service workers 2 5 -- 7 8. College students 1 -- -- l 9. Retired -- -- l l O. No information, or does not apply 3 -- l 4 Total 54 54 55 163 m X2 = 19.86 (For computation of chi-square, lines 1 and 2 were com- df = 6 bined as were 3 and 4, 6 and 7. Lines 8, 9, and 10 p< .01 were omitted. ) represented in Edgemont and South Lansing, while no workers in these categories live in Haslett. 87 Table 54 shows another classification of occupations, designed to further reveal differences between subdivisions in this respect. Chi-square tests show that the subdivisions differ signi- ficantly in occupational composition, in both classifications. The major contributing differences, of course, are those mentioned above -- the large proportion of professionals in Haslett, and the large number of factory workers in the other two. Table 54. Occupations of husband, by subdivision. Occupations H S E Total Professional 20 ll 11 42 Sales 9 ll 8 28 Business 11 5 12 28 Skilled and foremen 5 11 ll 27 Semi-Skilled l 16 ll 28 Total 46 44 52 153 ======£ x? = 15.81 df = 8 p< .001 The next basic characteristic to be examined is education. (See Tables 55 and 56) The differences between subdivisions are again statistically significant, as expected, for both husbands and wives, in the same pattern as the occupational differences. It is interesting to note that the pattern of educational differences of wives is the same as that of the husbands, even though the wives' education is less in all three areas. 88 Table 55. Education of husband, by subdivision. Education of husband H S E Total High school or less 12 31 26 69 l - 3 years college 13 l5 16 44 Bachelor's degree or more 26 l7 12 45 Total 51 53 54 158 x2 = 22.65 df = 4 p< .001 Table 56. Education of wife, by subdivision. Wives H S E Total High school or less 25 42 35 102 1 - 3 years college 20 7 14 41 Bachelor's degree or more 9 4 6 19 Total 54 53 55 162 x2 = 12.56 df = 4 p< .02 Table 57 compares subdivisions on the variable of age of husband. The difference here is significant. South Lansing has more younger men, and Haslett has more older men, reflecting the usual later age of marriage of academic peOple. It takes longer to get educated and marriage is not economically feasible at an early age. Edgemont’s distribution is similar to that of Haslett, even though its occupational 89 pattern is more like South Lansing’s, in terms of the blue collar-white collar classification. All three areas are heterogeneous internally on this variable -- there are families in each subdivision at all stages of the family cycle. This heterogeneity is again attested to by Table 58, showing the number of children per family in the subdivisions. The differences between the three areas are not statistically signi- ficant. Table 57. Age of husband, by subdivision. H S E Total 20 - 3o 7 18 8 33 31 - 4o 31 29 29 89 41 and over 13 6 17 36 Total 51 53 54 l58 x2 = 11.83 df = 4 p< .02 Table 58. Number of children, by subdivision. Number of Children H S E Total 0 or 1 ll 10 13 34 2 22 22 14 58 3 15 13 16 44 4 or more 6 9 12 27 Total 54 54 55 163 x2 = 4.92 df = 6 Not Significant 90 It will be recalled that the variable of house values was held constant when the subdivisions were chosen, with the hOpe that income level would thereby also be controlled. That this hOpe was not fully realized is shown by Table 59. The differences between sub- divisions on this variable are significant at the .01 level. The Table 59. Family income, by subdivision. H s E Total Up to $6,999 16 23 7 46 $7,000-8,999 19 13 20 52 9,000 and over, l7 13 26 56 Total 52 49 53 154 x2 = 14.68 df = 4 pi< .01 contrast between Haslett and South Lansing is approximately as expected given the occupational distributions of those two areas. The Edgemont area differs the most from expectations. As previously noted, Edge- mont has more white collar peOple in business and private practice; many of its blue-collar workers are employed at the Oldsmobile plant where wages are relatively high, even for those in the "Operative" cate- gory. These factors help account for the higher family incomes there. An additional explanatory factor could be a higher incidence of work- ing wives, so this variable was also tested by subdivision. Table 60 shows that the number of working wives does not differ significantly among subdivisions. Moreover, the Edgemont figure is lower than that 91 for South Lansing, which has the lowest median income figure. So the number of working wives is not related to the higher income in Edgemont. Table 60. Werking wives by subdivision. Does wife work? H S E Total No 43 33 40 116 Yes 11 21 15 47 Total 54 54 55 163 x2 4.61 df = 2 Not Significant Tables 61 and 62 show the prOportions of family income applied to debt and to savings in the three subdivisions, as estimated by the respondents. Once again, the differences are not significant, with the Table 61. Preportion of inccme applied to debts, by subdivision. H s E Total 5% and under 23 12 17 52 6 - 24% 18 24 22 64 25% or more 10 15 8 33 Total 51 51 47 149 x2 = 6.39 df = 4 Not Significant debt figures being higher than the savings in all three. Haslett 92 does show a slightly higher percentage in the "16 percent and over" category applied to savings. Perhaps this might be explained by the stronger future orientation of the academic men who live there, plus the compulsory retirement participation of those employed by the University or by the State of Michigan. Table 62. Proportions of income applied to savings, by subdivision. H s E Total 5% and under 15 17 2o 52 6 - 15% 21 24 24 69 16% and over 13 8 6 27 Total 49 49 50 148 x2 = 3.86 df = 4 Not Significant Life Styles Residential Experience Table 63 shows the number of moves made by each family since being formed, compared by location of present residence. Although the differences among subdivisions are not statistically significant, Haslett shows somewhat more residents who have moved four or more times, a reflection of the slightly higher mobility associated with university people. Of course, number of moves is associated with the length of time a family unit has'been in existence. The number of years married is exhibited in Table 64, which shows that the subdivisions 93 Table 63. Number of moves, by subdivision. H S E Total None or 1 6 10 14 3o 2 - 3 22 24 25 71 4 or more 26 l9 15 60 Total 54 53 54 161 Table 64. Number of years married, by subdivision. H S E Total Up to 10 years 25 27 19 71 11 - 15 years 16 15 16 47 16 years and over 11 10 10 31 Total 52 52 45 149 x2 = .96 df = 6 Not Significant differ very little in terms of this variable. Each has substantially the same number of families in all of the categories. So again we find heterogeneity within suburban areas. Table 65 represents an effort to combine "number of moves" and "number of years married" into one index -- the latter divided by the former. Once again, when com- pared by the number of years at each residence, the three areas do not differ significantly, As indicated previously, the median figure 94 for the total sample is 3.84 years. Table 65. .Mbbility index, by subdivision. H S E Total 4 or under 30 31 l7 78 4.01 - 6.00 10 10 12 32 6.01 or over l4 l3 16 43 Total 54 54 45 l53 x2 = 4.51 df = 4 Not Significant It was anticipated that South Lansing and Edgemont would have more immigrants from the Lansing area than Haslett, with its numbers of university people, who might be expected to have come from other locations. Table 66 shows place of previous residence by sub- divisions; the number having moved from the Lansing area to Haslett, Table 66. Place of previous residence, by subdivision. H S E Total Lansing area 35 42 46 123 Other 18 10 9 37 Total 53 52 55 160 x2 = 5.35 df = 2 p*§ .10 although smaller than in the other two areas, is not significantly 95 different. (The significance level for this relationship is p <1.10) Direction is manifested by this array, but the difference is not of sufficient magnitude to reach the conventional significance level. Since it was suspected that families in Haslett had perhaps settled there after a temporary Lansing area residence, the place of second previous residence was investigated. The results are shown in Table 67. Again the figures for South Lansing and Edgemong are similar, but those for Haslett are significantly different this time at the .02 level, corroborating the expectation. Table 67. Place of 2nd previous residence, by subdivision. H S E Total Lansing area 12 26 23 61 Other 42 28 32 102 Total 54 54 55 163 x2 = 8.44 df = 2 p <1 .02 From the foregoing, Haslett appears to have fewer residents of Lansing origin. To check this conclusion, a test was made com- paring subdivisions on closeness of nearest relative. Table 68 shows that significantly fewer Haslett residents have immediate relatives in the Lansing area. This reinforces the notion that Haslett resi- dents are comparatively more mobile than residents of the other two areas, and have moved farther away from their close relatives. Table 68. Closeness of nearest relative, by subdivision. H S E Total Lansing area 19 42 43 104 Michigan 19 8 7 34 Out of state 12 3 5 20 Total 50 53 55 158 x2 = 25.60 df = 4 p< .001 The subdivisions were also compared as to the reasons surround- ing their leaving their last residence and choosing their present home. It was expected that more Haslett residents would have moved because of job changes, while the size and cost of the house would be more important factors to residents of the other two areas. Table 69 shows that while the expectation was correct (a significant difference is revealed), substantial numbers of Haslett residents also gave features of the physical structure (too small, wanted to buy rather than rent, wanted better house) as the most potent factors in their decision to leave their last residence. Table 70 exhibits the reasons given for choosing the present location for residence. (Chi—square analysis was not made because of the small number of cases in some cells) Looking at the reasons and frequencies, we see that more Edgemont residents gave reasons relating to the children (better schools, more room for child- ren to play) and to "nice neighborhood," but otherwise the reasons are very similar to those given in South Lansing. In Haslett, the most frequent reason was financial -- "most house for the money," "best 97 Table 69. Reason for moving from last house, by subdivision. H s E Total Job 17 7 6 30 House 30 36 31 97 Other 6 5 10 21 Total . 53 48 47 148 x2 = 9.08 df = 4 p <-.05 Table 70. Reason for choosing present house, by subdivision. Reasons H S E Financial 25 12 13 Reasons related to children 2 5 9 Conveniences l 3 2 Influence of family, friends 3 -- 2 Nice neighborhood -- 2 6 Status betterment 8 4 1 Features of this parti- cular house 15 28 22 X? not possible house we could afford," etc. The most frequently cited reason for Edgemont and South Lansing was "features of thisIarticular house." It is difficult to separate "financial" and "house" reasons, because it is within the framework of a general price range that the respondents are working when theycompare features of houses. No doubt they all would like features of homes in the $85,000 bracket, but know purchase 98 of such a house is out of the question. Furthermore, it is possible to buy cheaper houses in the Lansing area than those in the study areas. If peOple were interested merely in the cheapest housing, they wouldn't be where they are. Prior to even looking for a house, some general idea of an "apprOpriate" location, neighborhood, and type of house was present in the minds of respondents and, after this first step in the decision—making process, subsequent choices were made, leading to the final commitment. So the reasons given may be relati- vely superficial, and assuredly are factors which influenced judgments relatively late in the series of decisions involved. Nevertheless, they are most salient in the minds of respondents, and must be impor- tant to them. Social Participation The study subdivisions were further compared by the extent of activity in voluntary associations. While it was expected that the more white collar workers an area had, the more organizational participation would be present, it was also felt that one or more of the areas might have a tradition or a climate conducive to belonging to or seeking outside groups for membership. Table 71 shows that the subdivisions do not differ significantly when memberships of both hus- band and wife combined are compared. (The differences were also not significant when husbands’ and wives' memberships were compared separately.) A rather liberal definition of organizational membership was used; some who reported belonging to groups had not attended any meetings for months. Professional organizations were included, even 99 Table 71. Number of organizational memberships (husband and wife), by subdivision. H S E Total 0 - 2 2O 26 23 69 3 or more 34 28 32 9h Total 54 54 55 163 x2 1.34 df :4 Not Significant though they met only once a year in some distant city. Union member- ship was counted, although many declared they never attended meetings. Bowling leagues and card clubs were also accepted, the feeling being that all these activities were part of an overall "style of life" for respondents. Even with this inclusive definition, twenty family units (forty husbands and wives) belonged to no voluntary groups; twenty- three belonged to only one, and twenty-six claimed two memberships (possibly one apiece for husband and wife). .A Spirit of belonging for belonging's sake does not seem to be present in any of the three areas. In addition to participation in formal organizations the three subdivisions were compared with regard to the frequency of visit- ing relatives. If peOple have established strong family relationships and visit relatives quite frequently, it could cut down on the amount of time available for formal organizational memberships. Visiting relatives is also a form of social participation. .100 Table 72 shows that the differences between subdivisions in the frequency of visiting relatives is significant at the .001 level. Haslett residents are lowest in this regard, as compared to the other two subdivisions, which are similar to each other. If we look at the total range of participation, then, figuring in the visiting of rela- tives, the slight edge Haslett has in organizational memberships is cancelled by its lower rate of visiting relatives. It appears that the social activity of the three subdivisions is similar; the way it is allocated differs. Table 72. Frequency of visiting relatives, by subdivision. H S E Total Twice a week or more 5 8 ll 24 Once a week 5 18 13 36 Once or twice a month 16 14 18 48 1-6 times a year or less 23 8 6 37 Total 49 48 48 . 145 x2 = 23.82 df = 6 p <\ .001 When the subdivisions are compared on the basis of specific organizations to which residents belong, some more differences emerge. Table 73 shows that Edgemont residents participate very little in civic organizations while in the other two areas, the frequency of membership in this type of group is surprisingly high. Such activity might be expected of Haslett white collar residents, but not of South 101 Lansing. One explanation might be that the white-collar workers in South Lansing tend to be in the lower echelons of the business world, and participation in civic groups may be looked upon as advantageous for occupational advancement. The residents of Edgemont are more secure and prosperous (judging by previous income comparisons) and may not feel the need to participate because of the same motivations. Whatever the reason, the relative inaction in Edgemont makes the difference significant, at the .001 level. Table 73. Number of civic organizations (husband and wife), by sub- division. H S E Total None 31 32 48 111 One or more 23 22 7 52 Total 54 54 55 163 m x2 = 14.09 df = 2 p < .001 Union membership, shown in Table 74 is high in Edgemont and South Lansing, as expected, and non-existent in Haslett. For many of the factory workers in S and E, belonging to the union is a necess- ary condition of employment. Most do not participate; the apathy of rank and file labor union members is notorious and well—documented. It was expected that membership in professional organiza- tions would be higher in Haslett; Table 75 shows that this was indeed the case. However, there were enough who belonged in South Lansing 102 and Edgemont that the difference was not statistically significant. Business organizations were excluded from this category as much as possible, but one or two may have erroneously been classified here through respondents' misunderstanding. Table 74. Union membership (husband), by subdivision. H S E Total Belongs 0 l7 14 31 Does not belong 54 37 40 131 Total 54 54 54 161 x2 = 19 df = 2 p\ ’ .001 Table 75. Professional organizations (husbands), by subdivision. H s E Total Belongs 19 10 14 43 Does not belong 35 44 40 119 Total 54 54 54 162 df Not Significant 3.86 An assumption was made about membership in another organiza- tion —- the PTA. When wives in the three subdivisions were compared, no significant differences were discovered. The PTA's always try to get the fathers interested and to get them on membership rolls. It 103 was exPected that Haslett fathers, with their higher educational levels, and presumably more positive orientation to education, would be more active in PTA groups. Table 76 shows no difference; the members belonging in each subdivision are almost identical. Table 76. PTA membership (husband), by subdivision. H S E Total Belongs 17 18 21 56 Does not belong 37 36 33 106 Total 54 54 54 162 x2 = .71 df = 2 Not Significant A general question was asked of the wives in relation to their participation in organizations. 0n the basis of the literature, it was suspected that with their move to the suburban area, with its large number of voluntary associations and its extension neighborhood activities (according to some reports) their social participation might have increased markedly, and could conceivably differ by subdivision. Table 77 shows that the responses were almost equally divided -- half said they were more active, half said not. And again, there was no significant difference between subdivisions in this respect. Leisure Time.Activity The categories of leisure time classification were reviewed in Chapter IV; this comparison presented in Table 78 by subdivision 104 Table 77. Wife more active socially, by subdivision. H S E Total Yes 25 26 25 76 NO 28 26 27 8l Total 53 52 52 157 x? = .09 df = 2 Not Significant Table 78. First preference (husbands), leisure time activities, by subdivision. m H S E Total Home maintenance and improvement 11 12 11 34 Gardening 4 9 5 18 Home craft 2 -- 2 4 TV watching 8 11 7 26 Spectator sports 5 4 1 10 Participant Sports 7 13 15 35 "Cultural" activities 2 -- -- 2 Social recreation 3 3 -- 6 Commercial recreation l -- l 2 Educational activities 2 l 1 4 "Thinking" activities 4 l 7 12 Leisure specialties 2 -- 4 6 Driving around -- -- -- -- Total 51 54 54 159 X2 not possible points up the similarities of choice (by first preference for husbands). .Although the statistical test is again impossible, the table once more shows very small differences between subdivisions. The three most 105 frequently named categories are home maintenance and improvement, participant sports, and TV watching, for all areas. Differences are only very slight. The same is true for the first preference of women, except that home craft (including sewing) shows up with greater fre- quency. In terms of reading habits, table 79 shows that reading books, as a pastime, is slightly more prevalent in Haslett, but not enough to effect significance. The number of magazines received is remarkably similar in all three subdivisions. Each has its non—readers and its receivers of many magazines, with no appreciable difference in distribution. Table 79. Number of books read in a year (husband), by subdivision. H S E Total None 17 27 19 63 l - 5 l2 12 19 43 6 - 15 9 5 6 2O 16 and over 15 9 11 35 Total 53 53 55 161 x2 = 7.81 df = 6 Not Significant Another component of "style of life" is relationships with one's neighbors and personal estimations of the climate of neighbor- liness. Once again, differences between subdivisions are negligible whether the question concerns an estimation of how well peOple know 106 each other (Table 80), or whether it deals with concrete behavior: how many neighbors are known by name by the reSpondent (Table 81), or how many neighbor families are normally contacted in a day (Table 82). Table 80. Estimate of how well neighbors know each other, by sub- division. H s E Total Fairly well 25 17 24 66 Quite well 18 19 17 54 Very well 10 l7 12 39 Total 53 53 53 159 x2 = 3.84 df = 4 Not Significant Table 81. How many neighbors known by name, by subdivision. H S E Total A few 9 11 10 30 Half 12 7 6 25 Most 16 25 20 61 All 17 11 18 46 Total 54 54 54 162 x2 = 5.66 df = 6 Not Significant Summary Comparisons show that the major differences between and among subdivisions are those associated with the criteria for selection-- 107 occupation, education, and income. Otherwise, when style of life is considered, the three areas are very similar. Table 82. Number of neighbors families contacted in a day, by sub- divisions. H S E Total None 5 6 4 15 1 - 2 23 16 15 54 3 - 4 11 16 21 48 5 or more 15 16 15 46 Total 54 54 55 163 x2 = 5.66 df = 6 Not Significant Haslett residents tend to have completed more years of for- mal education, have white collar occupations, and medium incomes (relative to the other two areas). Their mobility is often because of job change, but many gave the same reasons for moving as did resi- dents of the other two areas -- desire for larger house and desire to get the best house for the money expended. None belong to labor unions but the rate of participation in civic groups is high. .Activities in other groups is not appreciably different from the patterns found in the other two areas. The close relatives of Haslett residents tend to be located in places other than the local Lansing area; they have moved farther geographically from their points of origin. This helps account for the relatively low frequency with which they visit their close rela— tives. 108 South Lansing residents have fewer years of schooling, related to the higher proportion of blue-collar occupations. They tend to have close relatives in the Lansing area and to interact with them frequently. They moved from their last residences and chose their present residences because of their desire to buy a home, for the room available, and for economic reasons. Incomes are lower in South Lansing, on the average, than in the other two subdivisions. Edgemont residents' incomes are the highest; the occupa- tions there are in the more highly paid white collar categories, and relatively skilled labor. Union membership is comparatively high, although participation is low. Their reasons for selecting their present homes are similar to those expressed by South Lansing's resi- dents; many also have, and frequently visit, close relatives in the Lansing area.. No one of the three subdivisions stands out with distinctive behavior configurations, when the three are compared on the basis of leisure time use, characteristics of the family unit, and participa- tion in voluntary associations. The study subdivisions are different in the basic sociological elements of occupation, education, and in- come, but these differences do not appear to have a great effect on behavioral "life-style" variables. Further comments on the differences and similarities among the three subdivisions will be reserved for Chapter VIII. 109 CHAPTER'VII COMPARISONS OF RESPONDENTS BY OCCUPATIONAL CLASSIFICATION In this chapter, the data will be ordered by the occupational category of the husband. As indicated above, the occupations were class— ified using the Edwards scheme employed by The U. S. Bureau of the Census. After this initial classification, the cases were grouped under two headings: white collar and blue collar. Customary practice was followed in this procedure. White collar consists of workers classified as professional and technical, managers, officials, and proprietors; clerical and kindred; and sales workers. Included in the blue-collar group are craftsmen and foremen, operatives, and service workers. The figures in each category for the study sample are: white collar - 106, and blue collar - 52. (Five cases were not usable because: (a) There was no male head of family, or; (b) the husband was retired or was a university student.) The frequencies and percentages for each subdivision have already been presented (see Table 10a, Chapter III, supra). Occupation as a Variable for Analysis The decision to use occupational classification as an indepen- dent variable in this study was made for several reasons. Past studies of suburbs have emphasized occupations in their descriptions and analyses. Whyte's Park Forest, Illinois is described as a haven for organization men on the way up, virtually all white collar workers in a large business and military organizations.1 In his descrip- lWilliamHI. Whyte, Jr., The Organization Man, (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957). 110 tions, Whyte equates white collar, middle class, and suburbia. For the organization men he is dealing with, he makes these synonymous. The norms, values, and attitudes of Park Forest are middle class, are im— parted to the white collar workers who live there (if they are not already equipped with them upon arrival), and Park Forest represents suburbia, par excellence. Whyte does acknowledge the existence of Eastgate, a lower-class development adjacent to Park Forest, but after one brief mention, it is never heard of again.2 The Seeley, gt: ad? study of Forest Hill Village in Ontario is consciously concerned with a wealthy suburb; the white collar occupations of its residents are men- tioned briefly and then taken for granted.3 Berger uses the "white- collar suburbs" of previous studies as a contrast to his "working class" suburb. His respondents are blue collar automobile workers.l‘L In the suburban school bond election study, the occupational classification 2 Ibid., p. 340. 3John R. Sim, Alexander Sim, and Elizabeth Loosley, Crestwood Heights (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956). "Of course, Berger's suburb is not typical either, since it is comprised entirely of automobile workers. He has shown that suburbs differ from one another, but has not shown internal variation. His use of the term "working—class" is curious. It has been demonstrated that this con- cept is ambiguous; in customary usage, it refers to blue collar occupa— tions, implying that those in white collar "positions" don't work. If one were rigorous in the application of the "working class" label, all occupations except those of the indigent,unemployed, and investors living on interest or rent would be included. However, the whole study of social class and stratification is shot through with such ambiguity and semantic imprecision. One suspects the title of Berger's book was chosen more for its nice ring than its conceptual clarity. lll proved fruitful for the analysis of voting behavior.5 In addition, of the mass of variables that have been and could be used as indicators of social class, occupation stands out as a readily distinguishable and generally valid index to a complex phenomenon. White collar or blue collar occupational status has become generally understood as symbolic of genuine differences in outlook and life styles associated with class status. In stratification studies, most authors have utilized occupation as one of the major indices, or even one of the major determinants, of social class standing. In his study of Yankee City, Werner used occupa— tion as one of the components of his index of status characteristics.6 The Lynds' basic definition of class in Middletown is based on occupation, with a division of the pOpulation into a "working class" and a "business class."7 James west divided Plainville's peOple into occupational groups for analysis, and then discussed related styles of life.8 Kahl and Davis reported that of nineteen variables used as indicators of socio-economic class, an 5Gary W; King, Welter E. Freeman, and Christopher E. Sower, Conflict over Schools: .A Sociological Analysis of a School Bond Election (East Lansing, Michigan: Institute for Community Development, Michigan State University, 1963). 6Warner, W; Lloyd, Marchia Meeker and Kenneth Ells, Social Class in American Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1957. 7Robert S. Lynd and Helen M. Lynd, Middletown (New York: Har- court Brace and Company, 1929). 8James West, Plainville, U. S. A., New York: University of Columbia Press, 1945. 112 occupation scale was the best single index.9 In a study of three Michigan communities, Westby reports heavy reliance by judges on occupational criteria when they described characteristics of social classes in their communities.lo Of course, classes can be discerned by the use of any number of single criteria. "Social class" is by no means a simple term; it subsumes elements of relative economic and/or political power, prestige and esteem, and varying dimensions of life style. For the purposes of this study, occupation is used as an index to the economic variable (itself not clear- cut),.and the object is then to ascertain if selected aspects in life style are associated with occupational classifications. The sample includes a broad range of occupations, but it nowhere near approximates the range in the entire society. To begin with, the sample areas are relatively homogeneous, in terms of economic power. If our respondents were very wealthy or very poor, they would not be living where they are. So perhaps our hypothesis about styles of life should be re-phrased to include the variable of disposable wealth and income. If life-style differences between white collar and blue collar workers are fOund, we shall conclude that these differences are due to different norms and values associated with membership in occupational categories, which in turn are presumably related to the different patterns of socialization in the social classes they represent. If differences do not exist, then the 9J..A. Kahl and J. A. Davis, "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio- Economic Status," American Journal of Sociology, 20 (June, 1955), p. 321. 10David L. Westby, "A Study of Status Arrangements in Three Michigan Communities" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962). 113 conclusion will be that economic level, regardless of imputed social class differences, is a more potent variable in determining life styles than is membership in traditionally different social class milieus. Basic Sociological Variables One of the major identifying characteristics of people is the amount of education they have received. Since this variable is often used with occupation as an indicator of social class standing, it is reasonable to expect a strong relationship between the two. Tables 83 and 84 show that such a relationship exists in the sample data, for both hus- bands and wives. Although high prOportions of the white collar workers have achieved their white collar status without the benefit of a college degree, none of those who dg_have degrees are in blue collar occupations. Put another way, among our respondents at least, it’s not necessary to have a de- gree to be classified as white collar, but all of those who do have degrees are in white collar jobs. Table 83. Education of husband, by husband’s occupational category. White Blue Total High School or less 30 39 69 Some college 32 12 44 Bachelors degree or more 44 0 44 Total 106 51 157 x2 = 39.90 df = 2 p < .001 114 Table 84. Education of wife, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total High school or less 54 46 100 Some college 35 3 38 Bachelor's or more 17 2 19 Total 106 51 157 x? = 22.98 df = 2 p <2.001 Once again, it is shown that the pattern of educational attainment among wives is similar to that of their husbands. Only two wives with college degrees are married to blue collar workers. Overall, the white collar wives are substantially better educated, as expected. The age of respondents was compared by occupation with no clear expectation regarding the outcome. One could argue for an older blue collar group because it conceivably could have taken longer for them to reach the level of financial prosperity to buy in the sampled housing areas. On the other hand, it could be argued that white collar workers would be older because of the longer period of training required for most of the white collar jobs, particularly the professions. Table 85 indicates no clear-cut trends in the data. White collar workers are spread all over the age range and the blue collar workers tend to be more concentrated in the middle. At any rate, no significant difference was revealed by the chi-square test. Demographers have indicated that, historically, there has been an inverse relationship between socio-economic status and fertility in the United States. In the early part of the century, alarm was expressed 115 Table 85. Age of husband, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total 20-30 25 8 33 31-40 58 31 89 41-50 15 11 26 51 and over 8 1 9 Total 106 51 157 X2 = 4.25 df = 3 Not Significant over the rapid multiplication of the "lower" classes while the "best" people were not replacing themselves. This differential fertility rate has dimin- ished considerably since the baby boom of the last two decades, however. As Charles Westoff puts it, "This contraction of group difference has re- sulted from the continued diffusion of a small-family norm in the lower classes in combination with a sharp increase in the fertility of the college— educated, middle, and upper income white collar classes. .A very signifi- cant proportion of the baby boom can be attributed to the resurgence of fertility among those classes of the pOpulation previously in the vangard of the fertility decline."ll Using the occupational categories as indicative of socio-economic classes in the present case, it was expected that the number of children would be substantially the same for both white collar 11Charles F. Westoff, "The Fertility of the American Population," in Ronald Freedman (ed.), Population: The Vital Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1964), pp. 117-118. See also Dennis wrong, Population and Society (2nd Ed.), (New York: Random House, 1961), PP- 71-73. 116 and blue collar, especially since the sample was drawn from representa- tives of essentially the same income level. Table 86 shows that the expectation was incorrect; the white collar representatives have signi- ficantly larger families, at the .001 level. The trend toward higher fer- tility among white collar peOple noted by demographers nationally is operative at the local level also. Table 86. Number of children, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total 0 7 8 15 1 12 18 3O 2 40 14 54 3 3O 5 35 4 and over 17 5 22 Total 106 50 156 x? = 20.74 df = 4 p ( .001 The next major item for comparison is family income. In strati- fication studies there is usually some correspondence between occupation, education and income, though it is of course never perfect. The subdivi- sions were found to differ significantly with respect to income and it was expected that white collar workers in the sample would probably earn more money, on the average. Table 87 Shows that the difference between occupa- tional categories on this variable is not significant; the proportions in each income bracket are almost identical for both groups. The blue collar workers can apparently afford their present houses just as well as the white collar people. 117 Table 872 Family income, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total Up to $6,999 30 15 45 $7,000 - 8,999 34 16 50 9,000 and over 30 17 55 Total 102 48 150 x2 = 1.06 df = 2 Not Significant Once again, it was decided to examine the distribution of working wives; they could conceivably have brought up the blue collar income level appreciably. But, as shown in Table 88, it was again shown that this variable was not a significant factor, since the incidence of working wives was not substantially different in the two groups. Table 88. Working wives, by husband's occupational category. fl: Does wive work? White Blue Total No 81 34 115 Yes 25 18 43 Total 106 52 158 x2 = 1.62 df = 1 Not Significant Estimates of the prOportion of family income applied to debts and to savings were again compared, this time by occupation. It was expected 118 that the debt percentages would be similar, but that white collar workers would tend to salt away more money for the future. The expectation about debt was correct (Table 89 shows no significant differences) but in- correCt about the rate of saving (Table 90 also shows no significant differences, although the frequencies do exhibit the expected direction.) Assuming random error in the estimates of respondents, savings habits are not a differentiating factor between the two occupational groups. Table 89. Proportion of income applied to debts, by husband’s occupa- tional category. White Blue Total 5% and under 38 13 51 6 - 24% 41 22 63 25% and more 19 12 31 Total 98 47 145 f = 1.86 df = 2 Not Significant Table 90. Pr0portion of income applied to savings, by husband‘s occupa- tional category. White Blue Total 5% and under 31 21 52 6 - 15% 45 21 66 16% and over 20 6 26 Total 96 48 144 x2 = 2.47 df = 2 Not Significant 119 Life Styles The major assumption for this section is that the elements of life style reviewed will be different for the blue collar and white collar groups. Since most stratification literature reports such differ- ences, and since studies like Middletown, Organization Man, and Working- Class suburb owe their very existence to the postulation of such differ- ences, such an assumption is reasonable and consistent with previous researches in this area. The directions in which specific differences are expected are indicated for each variable compared. Residential Histony The picture of the white-collar worker presented by Whyte and others includes high mobility; the tendency toward frequent family moves, usually because of job changes. Table 91 shows the comparison of the sample data. The difference between the categories is significant in the expected direction. But it is interesting to note the substantial numbers of those in both groups whose history of moves is not consistent with others in the same group. Overall, however, the conclusion is that white collar workers tend to move more often. This observation only makes sense if the families have been in existence for the same periods of time for both categories. Table 92 is a comparison of the number of years married. It is substantially the same in both groups. Table 93 utilizes the previously - discussed mobility index in the comparison. (The index numbers refer to the number of years in each residence.) The trend of the frequencies is consistent with the findings exhibited in Table 91; blue collar workers appear to stay longer 120 at each residence between moves. The difference is not statistically significant however. Table 91. Number of moves since marriage, by husband’s occupational category. White Blue Total One or less l4 14 28 2 26 13 39 3 18 12 30 4 21 7 28 5 l8 1 l9 6 or more 9 3 12 Total 106 50 156 x2 = 12.22 df = 5 1><..05 Table 92. Number of years married, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total Under 5 years 8 3 ll 5 - 7 years 18 8 26 8 - 10 years 21 ll 32 ll - 15 Years 33 14 47 Over 15 years 17 ll 28 Total 97 47 144 x2=.966 df = 4 Not Significant It was expected that the location of the previous residences would differ, with more of the blue collar workers having moved to these 121 Table 93. Mobility index, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total 4 or under 57 20 77 4.01 - 6 19 12 31 6.01 or over 30 2O 50 Total 106 52 158 X2 = 3.29 f = 2 d Not Significant subdivisions from within the Lansing area. But Table 94 shows that there is no significant differences between the groups on this variable; the centrifugal city-to-suburb pattern seems most prevalent in both. When the kigd of area of previous residence is examined by occupation, again no significant difference emerges, even though slightly more of the white collar group have moved from other suburbs to their present residences (See Table 95). Table 94. Place of previous residence, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total Lansing area 76 43 119 Other 28 8 36 Total 104 51 155 x? = 1.83 df = 1 Not Significant 122 Table 95. Kind of area of previous residence, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total urban 65 39 104 Suburb 2O 3 23 Rural 11 7 18 Total 96 49 145 2 X df Not Significant ll II 5.28 2 Because of the previously indicated higher mobility by the white collar peOple, it was expected that the number of years at the previous residence would be lower for this group. Table 96'shows a significant difference this time, in the expected direction. The blue collar workers are distributed rather evenly between the time categories, while the largest number of white collar workers appears in the 1~2 1/2 years classification. Table 96. Number of years at previous residence, by husband's occupa- tional category. White Blue Total Less than 1 year 15 5 20 1 - 2 1/2 years 46 10 56 3 - 4 1/2 years 21 13 3h 5 - 7 1/2 years 14 10 24 8 years or more 8 ll 19 Total 104 49 153 x2 = 13.11 df = 4 p( .02 123 Table 97 Shows the results of a test of an inference drawn in the last chapter; namely, that because of more limited residential mobi- lity patterns, the blue collar workers tend to be near their close rela- tives, to have close relatives in the Lansing area, or at least in the state of Michigan. The close relatives of white collar workers are located out of the state much more frequently. Altogether, however, sixty-eight percent of the total sample have close relatives in the Lansing area, an unexpectedly high prOportion. Table 97. Closeness of nearest relative, by husbands occupational category. White Blue Total Lansing area 63 42 105 Michigan 23 6 29 Out of state 17 3 20 Total 103 51 154 x2 = 7.23 df = 2 P*< -05 Tables 98, 99, and 99a compare the two occupational categories on the reasons for their last move. Job-connected reasons for moving were expected to be more important for white-collar people, while reasons relating to Size or adequacy of house were expected to predominate in the blue collar category. The table Shows the expected tendencies but the differences were not of sufficient magnitude to be statistically signi- ficant. 124 Table 98. .Reason for moving from last house by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total Job 22 8 30 House 61 35 96 Other 20 7 27 Total 103 50 153 df Not Significant 1.67 2 Table 99. Reason for choosing present house, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Financial 41 9 Reasons related to children 10 6 Conveniences 2 4 Influences of family, friends 3 0 Nice neighborhood 6 2 Status betterment 7 5 Features of this particular house 37 26 X2 not possible Table 99 merely lists the first reasons given by respondents for choosing their present houses. Since the frequencies tended to con— centrate in certain categories, they were grouped in Table 99a, and subjected to the chi-square test. The difference in frequences is statistically Significant; substantially more white collar workers re- ported financial considerations to be most important in the choice of 125 their present house, contrary to expectations. The blue collar workers tended to emphasize features of the house and other factors as looming larger than financial aspects as their chief reason. Table 99a. Reason for choosing present house, by husband's occupational category (collapsed). White Blue Total Financial 41 9 50 Features of house 37 26 63 Other 28 17 45 Total 106 52 158 x2 = 9.62 df = 2 p < .01 Social Participation As previously noted, white collar workers are reported in the literature as being more active in secondary organizations and associa- tions than their blue collar counterparts. This proved true for the study sample; TableJIKDShows the number of organizational memberships for husbands. But the distribution is unusual; white collar workers are dis- tributed rather evenly, the same number belonging to Eo_organizations as belong to four or more. The blue collar workers tend to belong to one or two organizations. Even though the difference is statistically Signi- ficant, the white collar group is Spread over the entire range of organi- zational participation. Table 101 demonstrates that when husbands' and wives' organizational memberships are added together, the differences disappear; the prOportions are almost identical. 126 It was suspected that membership in bowling leagues, card clubs, etc., might have pulled the blue collar membership totals up to an unrealistic level, so membership in civic organizations was compared with the expectation that white collar participation in groups of this type would be substantially higher. Table 102 shows that, although the TableIHXL Number of organizational memberships (husband) by husband’s occupational category. White Blue Total None 22 2 24 1 23 24 47 2 23 13 36 3 16 8 24 4 or more 22 5 27 Total 106 52 158 x2 = 16.29 df =11 p1< .01 Table 101. Number of organizational memberships (husband and wife) by husband’s occupational category. White Blue Total 0 - 2 43 23 66 3 or more 63 29 92 Total 106 52 158 x2 = .07 df = 1 Not Significant eXpected direction is present, the frequencies are not statistically 127 different; too many white collar respondents are non-members for Signi- ficance to be exhibited. Table 102. Number of memberships in civic organizations (husband and wife) by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total None 66 41 107 One or more 40 11 51 Total 106 52 158 x2 = 3.67 df = 1 Not Significant When membership in specific organizations is compared, some expected differences do occur. More blue collar workers belong to labor unions, more white collar workers belong to professional organizations (Tables 103 and 104). PTA memberships among husbands, however, are substantially the same (Table 105). Also, when wives were asked whether they were more active in their present residences than previously, the answers were similar for both occupation groups (Table 106). Table 103. Union membership (husband) by husband's occupational category. J White Blue Total Belongs to union 1 3O 31 Does not belong 104 22 126 Total 105 52 157 128 Table 104. Membership in professional organizations (husband) by husband’s occupational category. White Blue Total Belongs 37 6 43 Does not belong 68 46 114 Total 105 52 157 x2 = 8.66 df = 1 pic .01 Table 105. IPTA membership (husband), by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total Belongs 36 20 56 Does not belong 69 32 101 Total 105 52 157 x2 = .113 df = 1 Not Significant Table 106. IS wife more active socially, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total Yes 53 22 75 No 49 28 77 Total 102 50 152 x2 = .561 df = 1 Not Significant 129 Leisure Time Activity On the basis of past studies, a great deal of difference was expected between the occupational categories in their use of leisure time. Table 107presents the frequencies of first preferences of respondents of the two groups. The figures are not greatly different for white and blue collar workers; the blue collar TV watching rate is a bit higher and the "thinking" and educational activities are pre- ferred more frequently by the white collar respondents. These differ- ences were expected, but the magnitude of the contrasts is much smaller than anticipated. Table 107. First preference (husband), leisure time activity, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total Home Maintenance and improvement 21 12 33 Gardening 10 8 18 Home craft 3 l 4 TV watching 14 12 26 Spectator sports 7 3 10 Participant sports 24 ll 35 "Cultural" activities 2 -- 2 Social recreation 3 3 ,6 Commercial recreation 2 -- 2 Educational activities 4 —- 4 "Thinking" activities 10 -- 10 Leisure specialties 6 2 8 Driving around -_ -_ __ Total 106 52 158 X2 not possible 130 It was expected that the white collargroup would read more books and subscribe to more magazines; in fact, this difference was almost taken as axiomatic. Tables lOESand 109 reveal that the white collar group does tend to receive more magazines, but the disparity does not quite reach the level of significance. we had expected somewhat more difference in these items. Table 108. Number of books read in a year (husband), by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total None 3 38 22 60 l - 6 28 14 42 6 or more 38 16 54 Total 104 52 156 x? = .63 df = 2 Not Significant Table 109. Number of magazines received regularly, by husband’s occupational category. White Blue Total None to 2 31 22 53 3 _ 4 31 16 47 5 or more 44 14 58 Total 106 52 158 Nb II II 3.83 df 2 p1( .10 131 Since the data lend themselves to the t-test, this test was also applied. Table lliDshows a comparison of the mean number of subscriptions per family in each group. The t-value, unlike the chi- square value, proved to be significant. Possibly the major fact this result demonstrates is that the t-test is more powerful than the chi- square test (when the t-test is appropriate). But it also shows the tendency of the data; the white collar group does tend to receive more magazines. Table 110. Number of magazines received regularly, by occupational category. White Blue 0 7 6 1 8 6 2 16 10 3 12 11 h 19 5 5 l3 4 6 12 5 7 6 l 8 1 2 9 or more*' 12 2 '"(given value of __ __ 10 for t-test) x = 5.20 x = 4.33 t = 2.24 p < .05 In addition, a qualitative analysis was made. Table 111 shows a selected group of magazines and the number and percentage of subscribers from each of the two occupational categories. The proportions receiving the generally popular magazines at the top of the list are about the same, but differences do appear farther down. For example, many more 132 white collar people subscribe t°.2l22 magazine. Three times as many white collar respondents get news magazines. .Although the numbers receiving Scientific American, National Geographic, Harper's and Atlantic are small, all who do receive them are in the white collar category. The pattern for Parents” magazine is just reversed; the blue collar percentage is twice as large as the white collar. Perhaps the blue collar group feels a greater need for outside help in raising children and gets security from some middle-class standards for proce- dure. Table 111. Names of magazines received by respondents, by occupational category. White Blue Magazine No. Per Cent No. Per Cent Life 33 31.1 16 30.8 Readers Digest 33 31.1 13 25.0 Ladies’ Home Journal 34 32.1 14 26.9 Saturday Evening Post 32 30.2 12 23.1 Better Homes & Gardens 31 29.3 12 23.1 Time 24 22.6 5 9.6 McCalls 15 14.2 12 23.1 Look 19 17.9 9 17.3 Redbook 14 13.2 12 23.1 Parents' 6 5.7 12 23.1 Financial Magazines 15 14.2 1 1.9 Argosy 4 3.8 5 9.6 National Geographic 8 7.6 -- -- Scientific American 3 2.8 -- -- Harpers 1 .9 -- —- Atlantic Monthly 1 .9 -- -- Total home magazines 45 42.5 14 26.9 Total news magazines 34 32.1 6 11.5 133 This analysis points up the fact that in magazine consump- tion, there are qualitative differences between blue and white collar patterns, even though quantities are not too dissimilar. This may be true of other life-style variables. In neighborhood relations, the white collar representatives seem to be Slightly more active, as indicated in Tables 112, 113, and 114. Substantially more white collar workers think the neighbors know each other very well, contact more neighbor families in a typical day, and appear to know'more neighbors by name, although this last contrast is not so great, being significant at only the .10 level. Table 112. Estimate of how well neighbors know each other, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total Fairly well 36 28 64 Quite well 38 15 53 Very well 29 8 37 Total 103 51 154 x2 = 6.03 (if = 2 P < .05 Summary The comparison by occupational category has revealed both dioflferences and similarities between the blue and white collar groups. Basic Socioeconomic Variables AS expected, the white collar husbands are better educated. The? same difference exists between wives in the two categories. 134 Table 113. Neighbor families contacted in a day, by husband's occupa- tional category. White Blue Total None 7 6 13 1 - 2 40 13 53 3 - 4 25 22 47 5 or more 34 ll 45 Total 106 52 158 x2 = 8.28 df = 3 p < .05 Table 114. Neighbors known by name, by husband's occupational category. White Blue Total A few 15 13 28 Half 20 4 24 Most 39 21 60 All 31 14 45 Total 105 52 157 df Not Significant 5.36 3 Husband’s age is similar in the two groups, as is gross family income. The incidence of working wives does not account for the similarity of income, since the two sets of wives hold outside jobs at about the same rate. The white collar families tend to have larger families, which was not expected. Both groups allocate money for retiring debts and 135 accumulating savings at about the same rates. Residential History The white collar group is the more residentially mobile, having a higher number of moves, and having Spent fewer years at the first previous residence. The mobility index reflecting the number of years at each residence Since marriage is similar for the two groups. The kind of area from which the respondents come to their present residences is also Similar, although the white collar group had come from suburbs slightly more frequently. The reasons given for moving from the previous residence were about the same for both groups, but white collar workers chose their present house for financial reasons ("best for the money," etc.) much more often than the blue collar group who gave "features of this particular house" as the major factor in their decision. Social Participation The difference between the two groups with respect to member- ship in voluntary organizations was significant; the blue collar workers belong most frequently to one or two, while the white collar workers are Spread fairly evenly over the range from no memberships to as many as four or more. .As would be expected, more blue collar ‘workers belong to labor unions, more white collar workers belong to professional organizations. But PTA membership was about even. The frequency of membership in civic organizations was also about the same. Informal participation patterns were somewhat different; 136 although both groups professed to know about the same number of people by name, white collar workers contact more neighbor families per day, on the average, and also have the idea that neighbors know each other better. This might indicate a bit higher "neighboring" propensity for the white collar families, perhaps as a result of their higher mobility rate. Leisure Time Preferences Both groups chose home-related activities frequently -- home maintenance and improvement, and gardening. "Participant Sports" was another activity both indicated often. The blue collar group apparently watch TV more frequently, the white collar group participate in "thinking" activities at a higher rate. The differences, although not quite as large as anticipated, were indeed present and in the expected directions. The differences and Similarities noted above raise some questions about the nature of our sample and also about the meaning and utility of the blue and white collar distinction as a class- ificatory device. Further comments on occupation are made in the concluding chapter. 137 CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS The first section of this final chapter is devoted to a summary of findings for the total sample. The second reports on the comparisons of the data by the major independent variables. The final section is a discussion of the implications of the study for suburbs and their growth patterns, for social class in the suburbs, and for the continuing process of urbanization. General Findings Data were gathered from 163 respondents, who lived in three suburban subdivisions in the Lansing, Michigan periphery. The subdivi- sions contained homes whose market value fell roughly in the middle range of the suburban housing in Lansing; the median value of homes was about $15,000. There was some variation on either side of this figure, from about $11,000 to $22,000. The median income for respondents was $8411, which was higher than the corresponding figure for the city of Lansing. The occupational breakdown for the sample showed sixty-five percent in white collar jobs and.thirty-five percent in blue collar. The median figure for years of SCIlool completed for the sample exceeded the city median for both men anti women, but there was a considerable variation among respondents. There was a wide variation also in the ages of respondents, bUt seventy-five percent of the males and eighty-five percent of the femziles were forty years of age or less. The modal figure for number OfC-hildren per family is two; however, forty-three percent had three 138 or more children. Among children's ages, there was again considerable variation, but the majority tended to be relatively young; eighty-five percent of the families had children who were twelve years of age or younger. The respondents were asked why they had moved from their pre- vious residences, and why they had chosen their present homes. The most frequently cited reasons for moving gygnyrom their previous places of residences were: (a) wanted more living Space; (b) had a job change which necessitated a move; and, (c) wanted to buy a home rather than continue renting. The reasons for selecting their present homes were: (a) the desirable features of the house and/or lot; (b) financial H H reasons, such as, "the best home for the money, we got a good deal on this house," "they didn't require a big down payment," etc.; and (0) reasons relating to the children -- "good place to raise kids," "good schools," etc. Much of the literature indicates that the last reason should be first, but these respondents verbalized economic reasons as being most compelling. The pattern of moving indicated centrifugal movement outward from Lansing; over seventy-five percent had moved to the suburban subdivisions from the city of Lansing or other parts of the Lansing area. Also, sixty-four percent of the sample had close relatives in the Lansing area, indicating some residential continuity. Eighteen percent of the men and twenty-eight percent of the women belonged to no organizations or associations; when "active participation" was used as a distinguishing criterion, the prOportion rose to seventy-seven percent who were quite active in no associations \‘l‘ 139 or organizations. The most frequently cited memberships were in the PTA, professional groups, and clubs or organizations devoted to recrea- tion, such as bowling or card-playing. About half of the sample could be called regular churchgoers; sixty—eight percent identified them- selves as Protestant and eighteen percent were Catholic. There was a good deal of variation expressed in leisure time preferences, with home maintenance and improvement, participant sports, and television watching being named most frequently, in that order. Sixty-five percent of the men and fifty percent of the women had read six books or less in the year preceding the interview; seventeen percent of the sample subscribe to no magazines but about two-thirds get from two to six magazines regularly in their homes. Results of Comparisons by Major Variables Location of Residence The conclusion reached after the comparisons by subdivision residence is that this variable seems to have little if any effect on attributes and behavior, at least in the three subdivisions under study. The differences noted appear to be related to the major criter- ion for selection of the three areas; namely, occupation. The selecti- vity discerned by Fava Operating with regard to choice of urban or suburban residence is not Operative on this suburban level. .Although there were differences between the subdivisions on some variables, many were items on which occupation of residents would be a determining factor; such as education, income, membership in labor unions and professional organizations, and rate of residential mobility. 140 The ranges of variation on these variables within the subdivisions them— selves were similar. It must be remembered, however, that these particular three subdivisions were chosen partially on the basis of the similar value of houses in them; their inhabitants come from roughly the same economic stratum. Presumably, if subdivisions which differed markedly in prices of homes were studied, differences in life-styles would be much more apparent. But then even the rough control over income and economic level would be lost, and the effects of assumed class ideology and economic power would be mixed even more. Moreover, very few blue- collar peOple can be found in housing much more expensive than exists in these three areas. So, within the bounds of this particular socio-economic level, and within these three subdivisions around the city of Lansing, the inhabitants have virtually the same range of characteristics and life styles. We conclude that mere subdivision difference between essentially the same kinds of subdivisions does not lead to different attributes and behaviors. Comparison by Occupational Category The results of the comparisons between white and blue collar people were rather mixed, and thus more difficult to interpret. Some expected differences did appear; white collar people had more education (both husbands and wives), had a higher rate of household mobility, belonged to more voluntary associations, and were not union members. Other predicted differences between the occupational categories 141 did not materialize, however. The income level was not significantly different. The same was true for PTA membership, proportions of income allocated for debt and for savings, reasons for moving, and activity of the wife socially. When leisure time preferences were compared, some differences did appear. Both groups were high in home maintenance kinds of leisure time activity. The major difference was in television viewing, which the blue collar group chose more frequently, and in "thinking" acti- vities, more often listed by white collar people. These differences are consistent with what the literature indicates. . Reading habits exhibited more Similarity than expected. The two groups did not differ significantly on the number of books read, but the white collar group did receive slightly more magazines. The two groups also differed as to the kipog_of magazines they subscribed to. Although different in their educations and occupations (and other characteristics highly dependent upon these variables), the two occupational groups did not differ greatly in "style of life," which was the focus of the analysis. This result indicated that ideologies of the blue collar and white collar segments do not necessarily differ greatly in modern American society, particularly at similar income levels. This finding is consistent with the common observation made in discussions of American social class in introductory textbooks: that the range of social class strata is being compressed, as a result of graduated in— come taxes on the top levels, and better wages at the bottom. We are thus experiencing an actual as well as a reputed (ideologically approved) expansion of the middle class. This expansion involves an increasing 142 proportion of the population, and involves values and behavior as well as income. Therefore, the use of the blue and white collar dichotomy, so long a hand andy indiSpensable tool in the sociologistS kit, may no longer be useful or valid. It carries with it connotations of differential social class correlates which may exist only between repre- sentatives of grossly different income levels. It is increasingly more important for the researcher to Specify exactly the dimensions of the social class correlates he is concerned with, and to clarify the differ- ences his classifications connote. Implications and Discussion Stein interprets the changes in the American community (read "the American society") in terms of three general processes-~industraliza- tion, bureaucratization, and urbanization.l These processes are inter- related and interdependent; the process most relevant in this discussion is urbanization, a concomitant of the other two, but conceptually amenable to separate treatment. Robert Park and other members of his "school" at Chicago made the concept of "natural areas" central to their theories of urbanization. The concept still is very important in human ecologists’ theories of urban growth and development. PeOple tend to gravitate to certain ecological areas of the city according to ethnic background, and,more importantly, according to their positions in the social structure. Park's group lMaurice R. Stein, The Eclipse of Community (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960). 143 studied areas where the city's elite had their residences, areas of juvenile delinquency, Skid row areas, and others. These natural areas still exist, as the city grows and develOps, and each of the city's sectors has its own functions, and its own kind of inhabitants. Thus, Schnore interprets suburban growth in terms of ecological pers- pectives; as the city expands, the function of residential housing for the middle economic strata is assumed by suburban areas. The inner city areas are being used for other, more economically logical functions. If this portion of the theory of urbanization is accepted, the important research questions concern the "how" rather than the "why" of suburban growth. What are the kinds of people attracted to suburbs, and in light of what social norms and values do they live their lives? As the urbanization process continues in this country, the variety of people moving to suburbs (viewed from traditional sociological perspectives such as occupation, education, and ethnic background) con— tinues to increase. The rise in the level of living of blue collar workers has been extensively noted; along with this goes the ability to enjoy cultural amenities and creature comforts on a par with other occupational categories. U. S. News and Werld Roport showed the real gains made by U. S. wage earners in an article dealing with post-war inflation. "Since 1948, based on living costs, the consumer's dollar has lost 22.6 percent of its purchasing power. In the same period of years, the average worker's earnings, counting wages and 'fringes,‘ have gone up 107 percent. Post war prosperity, in other words, has 144 meant major gains in ’real' income for U.S. workers."2 .An increasing number of Skilled blue collar workers has been able to move to urban peripheries to partake of the good life in suburbia they see and tear idealized in the mass media. The economic factor of the socio-economic scale is a most important pre-requisite for the financial commitments involved in suburban residence--a down payment, commuting costs, lawn and gardening equipment, a second car, etc. What are the motivating values and attitudes impelling such a move, so that it appears to be worth the financial outlay? The respon- dents in this study tended to first rationalize their moves in terms of getting a good buy for their money (a paramount value in American society), and then they placed emphasis on values relating to family life—-more room for children to play, better place to raise kids, good schools. Where did they get these values that they felt appropriate for their behavior? .As U.S. society continues to grow, as the mass media continue to exert an influence, a standardization of tastes, norms of behavior, and values is taking place. We have a background and tradition of what might be called rural values, and these continue to be viable in providing norms for decision making in relation to residential choice. Family-orientation and justification of behavior for family wel- fare also are important in a mass society. .As peOple are depersonalized, treated as units in large-scale organizations, the family becomes an increasingly important arena for the development of the individual's self- 2U.S. News and WOrld Roport, September 14, 1964, p. 97. (Basic data: U.S. Dept. of Labor.) 145 conception. The family becomes correspondingly more important as outside relationships are more impersonal and secondary in nature. Thus, decisions about housing are made with the consequences for family living firmly in mind. In addition, owning one's own home is a primary value in this country, which has the highest rate of home ownership in the world. A man's home is his castle, etc. In one's home there is privacy, where withdrawal from the relatively impersonal large-scale external society is possible. PeOple do not opt only for "suburbia," but for certain suburbs, in which they feel they can best satisfy their desires, within the financial range they can afford. Given economic, ethnic, racial, and occupational distinctions, there will probably continue to be "natural areas" in the suburbs also, differentiated by function for the entire area (industrial suburbs, satellite cities, dormitory suburbs), by the market values of the homes, and by the general income levels of their inhabitants. By far the most differentiating variable will probably continue to be diSposable income, with the racial factor becoming less important. Thus, suburban growth and outward expansion will probably continue apace with Urbanization, unless radical changes in cities occur--in available housing for middle income groups, in modes of transportation, in the distribution of functions within the metropolitan complex. Such changes, despite the efforts of humanistically oriented planners, seem unlikely to occur, in view of their vast cost, and within the economic System now in effect in the United States. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, W..A. Social Change and An Urban Fringe Area. Ithaca: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Publication No. 35, February, 1953. Angell, Robert. "The Moral Integration of American Cities," American Journal of Sociology. 57, Part 2 (July, 1951), pp. 1-140. Beegle, J..Allan, and Schroeder, Widick. Social Organization in the NOrth Lansing Fringe. East Lansing: Michigan State University Agri- cultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 251, September, 1955. Bell, Wendell. "Social Choice, Life Styles, and Suburban Residence," in The Suburban Community. Edited by William Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. 225-247. Berger, Bennett. Working Class Suburb. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960. Blizzard, Samuel W., and Anderson, William F. Problems in Rural-Urban Fringe Research: Conceptualization and Delineation. State College, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station, Progress Report No. 89, November, 1952. Bogue, Donald. "Urbanism in the United States, 1950," American Journal of Sociology. 60 (March, 1955), pp. 471-486. Broom, Leonard and Selznick, Leonard. Sociology. 2nd Ed. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 1958. Brunner, Edmund de 8., and Hallenbeck, Wilbur C. American Society; Urban and Rural Patterns. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955. Clark, S. D. "The Society of Suburbia," in Social Controversy. Edited by William Petersen and David thza. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1963. Dewey, Richard. "Peripheral Expansion in Milwaukee County," American Journal of Sociology. 54 (September, 1948), pp. 118-125. "The Rural-Urban Continuum: Real but Relatively Unimportant," American Journal of Sociology. LXVI (July, 1960), pp. 60-66. Dobriner, William M. Class in Suburbia. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Spectrum Books, 1963. . (editor). The Suburban Community, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1958. 147 Douglass, Harland P. The Suburban Trend. New York: The Century Company, 1925. Duncan, Otis, Dudley. "Community Size and the Rural—Urban Continuum," in Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (eds.), Cities and Society. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957. , and Reiss,.Albert J., Jr. "Suburbs and Urban Fringe," in The Suburban Community, Edited by William.Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958, pp. 45-66. Erbe, William. "Social Involvement and Political Activity: .A Replication and Elaboration," American Sociological Review. 29 (April, 1964), pp. 198—215. Fava, Sylvia Fleis. "Contrasts in Neighboring: New York City and A Suburban Community," in The Suburban Community. Edited by William Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1958, pp. 122-131. Fine, Benjamin. "Educational Problems in the Suburbs," in The Suburban Communit . Edited by William.Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnamis Sons, 195 2 PP- 317-325- Firey, Walter. Social Aspects to Land Use Planning in the Country-City Fringe: The Case of Flint, Michigan. East Lansing: Michigan College Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 339, June, 1946. Gordon, Richard E., Gordon, Katherine K., and Gunther, Max. The Spli - Level Trap. New York: The Dell Publishing Company, 1960. Greer, Scott. The Emerging City. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Gross, Neal. "Sociological Variation in Contemporary Rural Life," Rural Sociology. 13 (September, 1948), pp. 256-269. Haer, John L. "Conservatism-Radicalism and the Rural-Urban Continuum," Rural Sociology. 17 (December, 1952), pp. 343-347. Janowitz, Morris. The Community Press in an Urban Setting. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1952. Kachtik, Eugene E. "A Study of Community Orientation in a Rural-Urban Fringe Area." unpublished Master‘s thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, 1958. Kahl, Joseph A. and Davis, James.A. "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio- Economic Status," American Journal of Sociology. 20 (June, 1955), pp ' 317-325 0 148 Keats, John. The Crack in the Picture Window. New York: Ballantine Books, 1957. Kimball, Solon T. The New Social Frontier: The Fringe. East Lansing: Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 360, June, 1949. King, Gary W., Freeman, Walter E., and Sower, Christopher E. Conflict Over Schools: .A Sociological Analysis of a Suburban School Bond Election. East Lansing: Institute for Community Development, Michigan State University, 1963. Kurtz, Richard.A. "Resident Adjustment Patterns in the Rural-Urban Fringe," unpublished Doctor’s dissertation, Department of Sociology and.Anthro- pology, Michigan State University, 1959. , and Eicher, Joanne B. "Fringe and Suburb: A Confusion of Concepum" Social Forces. XXXVII (October, 1958), pp. 32-37. Lazerwitz, Bernard. "Metropolitan Community Residential Belts, 1950 and 1956," American Sociological Review. 25 (April, 1960), pp. 245-252. Lieberson, Stanley, "Suburbs and Ethnic Residential Patterns," American Journal of Sociology. 67 (May, 1962), pp. 673—681. Lively, Charles E. Queen, Stuart, Carpenter, David, McKain, walter, Jr., and Burnight, Robert. "The Sociological Significance of the Rural- Urban Fringe," Rural Sociology. 18 (June, 1953). Lundberg, George.A., Komarovsky, Mirra, and McInerny, Mary.Alice. Leisure: .A Suburban Study, New York: Columbia University Press, 1934. Lynd, Robert S. and Lynd, Helen M. .Middletown. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1929. Martin, Walter T. The Rural-Urban Fringe: .A Study of.Adjustment to Residence Location. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1953. Murphy, Raymond J. and Morris, Richard T. "Occupational Situs, Subjec— tive Class Identification, and Political Affiliation," American Sociological Review. 26 (June, 1961), pp. 383-392. Pryor, Edward T., Jr. "Urbanization in the Rural-Urban Fringe." Unpub- lished Master's thesis, Department of Sociology and.Anthr0pology, Michigan State University, 1961. Riesman, David. "The Suburban Sadness," in The Suburban Community, Edited by William Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1958, pp. 375-408. 1&9 / Ross, H. Laurence, "Uptown and Downtown: .A Study of Middle-Class Resi- dential Areas," American Sociological Review. 30 (April, 1965), pp. 255-259. Schnore, Leo F. "The Growth of MetrOpolitan Suburbs," American Sociolo- gical Review. 22 (April, 1957), pp. 165-173. . "Municipal.Annexations and the Growth of MetrOpolitan Suburbs, 1950-1960," American Journal of Sociology. 67 (January, 1962), pp. boo—ul7. . "The Socio—Economic Status of Cities and Suburbs," American Sociological Review. 28 (February, 1963), pp. 76-85. Seeley, John R., Sim,.Alexander, and Loosley, Elizabeth. Crestwood Heights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956. Shryock, Henry 8., Jr. "Some Results of the 1960 Census of the United States," Rural Sociology. 27 (December, 1962), pp. h60-h72. Smith, Joel, Form, William H., and Stone, Gregory P. "Local Intimacy in a Middle-Sized City," American Journal of Sociology. 60 (August, 195u), pp. 276-28u. Spaulding, Irving A. "Serendipity and the Rural-Urban Continuum," Rural Sociology. 16 (March, 1951), pp. 29-36. Spectorsky,.A. C. The Exurbanites. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1955. Stein, Maurice. The Eclipse of Community. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960. Strauss, Anselm. Images of the American City. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. Tomars, Adolph S. "Rural Survivals in American Urban Life," in Socio- logical Analysis. Edited by Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, l9h9. United States Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of POpulation,_l96Q, Number of Inhabitants, Michigan. Final Report PC (1) 2RA. Washing- ton, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1961. Vidich, Arthur J., and Bensman, Joseph. Small Town in Mass Society. Princeton, New Jersey: The Princeton University Press, 1958. warner, W} Lloyd, Meeker, Marchia, and Eells, Kenneth. Social Class in America. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1957. warren, Roland. The Community in America. Chicago: Rand MCNally and Company, 1963. 150 West, James. Plainville, U.S.A. New York: University of Columbia Press, 1945. westby, David L. "A Study of Status Arrangements in Three Michigan Communities." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology, Michigan State University, I962. Westoff, Charles. "The Fertility of the American POpulation," in Freedman, Ronald (ed.), Population: The Vital Revolution. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, l96h. Whyte, William.H., Jr. "Are Cities Un-American?" in The EXploding Metro- polls. Edited by the Editors of Fortune. Garden City, New York: . The Organization Man. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957. . "Urban Sprawl," in The Erploding MetrOpolis. Edited by the Editors of Fortune. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958. Wilensky, Harold L. Review of Berger's WOrkingeClass Suburb. American Sociological Review. 26 (April, 1961), pp. 310-311. Wirth, Louis. "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology. Am (July, 1938), pp. l-2u. Wood, Robert C. Suburbia: Its People and Their Politics. Boston: Hought on-Mifflin , 1959 . Wrong, Dennis. Population and Society. NeW'York: Random House, 1961. Michigan State University I. 2. 3. QOQEIDENTIAL SUBURBAN LIFE STYLES STUDY Draft 5 - l0/l7/60 Institute for Community Development and Services quoted or made public in any way. All information in this schedule is strictly confidential and under the exclusive control of the institute for Community Devei0pment and Services of Michigan State University. Re- sponses will be used for statistical reports and will not be identifying Data Respondent number (not name) Address Subdivision area Date Day of week Call Back Record Date and Day Reason interview not administered Date and Day Reason interview not administered Date and Day Reason interview not administered Interviewer Time Time Time Good (morning, afternoon. evening). My name is and l'nnfrom Michigan State University. The Institute for Community Development atiRichigan State is doing a survey of suburban living and I'd like to ask you a few questions. May i come in? $10 the interviewer: Use the following statement if) respondent is reluctant to continue. ) We are studying several different kinds of suburbs. We are trying to learn about the backgrounds and interest cf suburban residents, and particularly about their opinions of the places in which they live. Your answers, along vdth the answers of the other persons interviewed. will be put into statistical reports and will be extremely useful to others who are thinking about moving to the suburbs. Now, first. i'd like to know a few things about you and your family. 1. Could you please tell me how many peepie live in this house? poumuo_ ones: .Wm<. «one >ocu aces: pee .omm c_o;u .emo: pen 0» a_smco_um_oe c_o:u o>mg _ p.300 .Om m. .0: mo> «use; up mc_>__ no: one 053 >__Emm oum_voee_ cso> mo memesoa ensue econ» ee< .p— .._ :1 one; (lbwruLLhrlllll v.050mzo: v_ma :0: 30m >ucom< Lo ha mc_pcouu< _o>ou .oocom to om< mo one: we Op oocmum_o >cmanu $0 oEmz um co_uma:ouo 30c _oo;um .ospm mo ucaoE< a_cmco_um_om 00— am em IN .0 am emN em 0N Anuecz so :o_mmmssoo .>em_em .mommz >_c:o:v «v_mn >osu one so: «x50: 0» _o>oeu >ogu op com 30: whom :50: >osu >ucome co >cmesou pay me use: ecu m. use: «:50: camp-acme no __:m peso m. ~eo>o_eeo one as: once» mo co_ume:uoo ecu m_ can: «mcwpcouue soc >osu one .oozum yen: .An—amu__aam cozzv «to; u>mc muuneos >__Emm as» co_umuavo _oo;um mo ucaoEm ecu m_ use: ~omn c.0nu a. one: «ammo—a .>__Eem ecu mo mconeoe ecu __m we v.0:om30c 0:» no one; new 0» a_:mco_um_ou ecu as __ou 30> v.30: .A>__e.eon voxmn on any unease: >__Eou co co_uoEeomc_ .ZIN 12. How long have you lived in this house? 13. About how old is this house? 11+. in regard to the family who lived here inmediately before you, do you happen to know how the head of the family made his (her) living? How about the families before that? Not applicable-~respondent first tenant. (a) lst. previous tenant H._ W. DK (b) 2nd. previous tenant H. W, DK (c) 3rd. previous tenant ll- ll. DK (d) 10th. previous tenant H4 fill. DK lS-i9. Where did you live just before you moved here? How long did you ' live there? what kind of a residence was it? (house, duplex, apartment, trailer, etc.) What kind of an area did you live in there? (city, suburb, open country, etc.) What was your main reason for moving? Where did you live before that? Etc. l5. l6. l7. l8. 19. No. Kind of Kind of Reason Place and State Years Residence Area for Moving l,(Prgsent residence) _2. _J;. ll. 5. 6. (H S W) 20. How did you come to decide that you wanted to move from your previous residence? (Probe: was there any particular event or circumstance that made you come to a decision to move?) (H 5. W) 2i. After you had made the decision to move, what did you begin to do about finding a new place to live? (Probe: can you recall what steps you took to find a new place?) (H s W) 22. (H a W) 23. 2h. 25. (H a W) 26. (H s W) 27. (H S W) 28. Note to interviewer: the following question may overlap with the previous one--skip it if already answered--enter information in appropriate place. When you were house-hunting before you moved to this address, how did you find out what was available? *want ads in the paper looking at model-homes in this area ._____looking at model-homes in advice and counsel of friends other areas ._____looking at plans, with the _____just driving around looking idea in mind to build. other (specify) real estate agency in your search and decision to move,‘which of these methods was most important? (interviewer: circle most important method above.) As well as you can remember, who did most of the looking? husband ______realty agent wife ._____friend ____husband and wife ____other (Specify) entire family Whose requirements,‘would you say, were most important in reaching the final decision? -_____husband ______entire family _____wife _____other (specify) husband and wife When you made your final decision, were there several houses to choose from that you were considering at the time? yes no If so, what were the main reasons why you chose this particular one? lst. reason 2nd. reason 3rd. reason Not applicable if not, what'were the main reasons for selecting this particular one and looking no further? lst. reason 2nd. reason 3rd. reason Not applicable (H a V) 29. (H s W) 3o. 3‘. 320 33. 3h. 35. 36. 37. On this card, (hand respondent card I) we have listed some of the reasons peOpIe give for deciding on a particular home. Are there any here that you may not have thought of which you would also include for selecting this house? lst. choice 2nd. choice 3rd. choice Now that you have been.living here for some time, would you tell me what you like most about living here? (hand respondent card ll.) lst. choice 2nd. choice 3rd. choice Note to interviewer: if the respondent answers above question with extremely positive feelings toward the area, ask alternate questions. Could you tell me what you particularly dislike about living here? (alternate) Is there anything at all you dislike about living here? Have you ever given any thought to moving from this address? yes no if yes, why? What did you do about it? Do you now have any immediate plans to move from this address? yes no if so, how soon? if so, why are you moving? (Interviewer: ask if reason not already given.) Where do you plan to move? Are you buying this house? Do you own the house outright? Are you renting this house? is this the first house you have bought? yes no if not, how many houses have you bought? Into which of these price ranges did this house fall when you bought it? (Hand respondent card) Price Category Were any of the following on the house when you moved here? ' garage yes ______no carport _____yes ____no interior fireplace _______yes _____no driveway _____yes _____no 38. 39. '40. ill. 1&2. Have you made any major or significant imporvements or additions to the house or grounds since you bought it? no. yes yes If yes to either, would you describe what they were? Do you think that since you bought it, this house has risen in value, fallen in value, or stayed about the same? Risen Fallen About the same If risen, why? If fallen, why? About how much would you estimate you could expect to sell the house for now, using the categories on the card again? Which of the following do you have in your house? _____automatic washer _____air conditioner ______dryer _______freezer ______dish washer _____de-humidifier _____TV Color?____Yes _______No Number of sets radio Number of sets PM Yes No AM Yes _____No Do you have a record player , hi-fl , or stereo set in your home? no. If yes, who usually uses the machine? husband wife children What sorts of records are usually played on it? Do you belong to any record clubs? Yes No if so, which ones? What division of the club (5) do you belong to? i+3. 14+. #5. #6. 1&7. What newspapers, if any, do you get regularly? (dailies and weeklles) ____St. Journal ____Merid News ______None ___Det. Free Press __N.Y. Times (daily) ____Det. News ____N.Y. Times (weekly) ____Det. Times ____Other (Specify) Now, i'd like to ask you about recreational reading. PeOple vary in the kinds of books and magazines they enjoy. About how many books would you say you and your husband (wife) read in a year? H: W: What kind of books do you prefer? H: W: (interviewer: probe until you get some numerical reSponse.) Do you belong to any book clubs? yes no If so, what are they? What particular magazines do you receive regularly in your home? Life ____Argosy ______Other (list) ______Look ______Cosmopol itan .____Sat. Eve. Post .____NcCalls ____Readers Digest ____Sat. Review ____Time ____Harpers ___Ladies Home Journal ______Atl. Monthly .____Good Housekeeping .____Better Homes 5 Gardens ____Fleld and Stream .____Nation Redbook __Nat'l Geog. DO-YOU keep any pets? Yes No If so, what are they? Do you and your husband (wife) have a religious preference? H: yes no W: yes no if so, what is your and your husband's (wife's) religious preference? H: ‘ Protestant (Denomination) Catholic Other (specify) W: Protestant (Denomination) Catholic Other (Specify) ~8- #8. About how often do you and your husband (wife) attend church services? H: every Sunday W: every Sunday 2 - 3 times per month 2 - 3 times per month once a month once a month not at all other (describe) not at all other (describe) J m _cmeoaeoe .mco_um~_cmmeo m_om_3 m a m J m a Illllllllmmmmmummmm_ .mco_umu_cmmco m_ecmpw=: co_u_mo .mmomwmo >_cm_:moe oEOm u>mc mo_mmo me_o: >_—muocum on: woo woo o>_uum .mconeue paces co_um~ poops ecu c_ eopcuuuo e o>_uom use census >cu> no: wo Loose: s_cmmco m_cu co_umwmcmmeo 30> o>ms mmc_uqu ou_:d u>_uo< use mco_om mo oumE_u moov couwo m_cu meow ecu mo co_ueoa mco_umN_cm no omocu c_ mmMHJflmduww umm .wm so: .mm econ: .Jm iced was; .mm name was: NmnOm .mcomumw_cmmeo .m: .uco.mmwmce .8 ~33: autumn .e_.__. Pu ".30 .396 vex .mmaocm ensues—g ecu o_>_u ..<.E.. “due .33 .33203 35.30on . . a an no new 5209.... 5323 3:03 _ a. o... _._ mcofie :30 “due 6030.. convince. its no spam .3 “.30 . . .Omooz .mx_m .mcowm: one we Loam 0. no seam .m so. _e=o_mmoeoe a . .. . m 1dl...m.. i . :oe.uuo no em a > o a < m0_vmg mm scam m 30L 205::0 sou: .5 n _ ou >Lom >hm I mco_unwmcmmuo Lo mue>u economm.p 0502 — = v_ . 3 .samuox ecu ux__ mnaqw.laMI|lI x :0 unn_cnmto one: .m=o_um~_em co .meeoucm co n_ee _x suuuc.v «on mac—on Aae_se pecans; Laos are so on n _ .:- .> nu.ameu mc_>_m >n uncumluozu_ 0m | m¢ tile. 57. (H s W) 58. (H a W) 59. Wife) 60. Are there any organizations that you used to be active in, but no longer participate in? H: What sorts of activities have you participated in during the past year because you were a member of one of these organizations? (see organization sheet) (For example, fund raising, special projects, etc., including statewide, local, or neighborhood activities.) Organization Activity What sorts of civic or volunteer activities or programs have you participated in during the past year that was not directly connected to any of the organizations you belong to? (for example, work on raising funds for community chest or something similar, membership on Special committees for various projects or some- thing local, like circulating a petition, helping sponsor a neighborhood party, etc. On state, local or neighborhood level?) ._ Many people who move to a new neighborhood feel new and strange. Over a period of time, one usually feels more at home. When you first moved here, did anyone do anything in particular to make you feel at home? - Yes ._________No if yes, would you describe what happened? (interviewer: ascertain the identity of the people who initiated the approach--nelghbors, professional greeters, etc.) -l]- 61. 62. 63. 65. 66. 67. Did anyone approach you, when you first moved here, to join any local activity? (Such as PTA, church, etc.) Yes No if yes, who, and would you describe the situation? Is there anything you miss about your last residence? Yes No If yes, what do you miss? Do you ever visit your old neighborhood? Yes No If yes, about how often? (interviewer: this question concerns the wife.) Do you (or your'wife, if talking to husband) find yourself taking a more active part in social affairs than you did at your last residence? Yes No How'well do you think that the peeple in the neighborhood around here know each other? READ DON'T READ not at all Don't know not so well fairly well quite well very well About how many of them would.ygg say that you know by name? none most a few all about half About how many families in your neighborhood do you come in contact *with for at least a few minutes every day or so? (number) -12- 68. About how many do you spend a whole afternoon or evening with every now and then? (number) 69. How close do your nearest relatives live? (interviewer: find out the relationship, and if there is more than one who lives pretty close.) 70. Do you regularly visit with your relatives? Yes No if yes, how often? If not regularly, how often? We'd like you to think a little about the future for the next two questions. We realize these questions may be difficult to answer, but we \uould appreciate your giving them your consideration. 7]. As you look ahead, say in about l0 years, what sort of a neighbor- hood would you say you will be living in? (Interviewer: examples would be "a neighborhood like this," ”a better suburban neighbor- hood,” "an apartment in the city,” etc.) 72. Now*we would like to spend a few moments discussing some of the things the members of this family do in their spare time. On this card (hand respondent card) are listed many kinds of leisure time activities. Would you please select three activities, in the order of their importance, for yourself, your husband (wife), and the family as a whole? H: lst W: lst Family: lst 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 3rd 3rd 73. Now, as a separate category, we'd like to mention vacations. What sorts of activities do you engage in while on vacation? Travel Winter resorts Other Camping Cottage at lake (specify) Hunting and fishing Visiting relatives Summer resorts At home 7h. Do any members of the family have sources of income which are not occupation-connected, such as dividends from stocks and bonds, trust fund payments, etc? Yes No * if so, could you describe what they are? 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 8'. Into which of these categories would you estimate that last year's tote; family income fell? (before income taxes) (hand respondent card Income category Next, weld like to get some idea of how suburban residents stand in the matters of family savings and debt. Do you think you could estimate the proportion, or percentage of your monthly income which is applied toward debts of various types--appliances, car, etc? Also, about what prOportions go for savings accounts, credit union, some kinds of life insurance, pension plans, stocks and bonds, etc? By the way, how many cars does the family have? What have been some of the important issues in this area in the past year? (such as annexations, school-bond prOposals, local real estate practices, etc.) What has been your attitude toward them? Did you work actively pro or con on any of these issues? issues Attitude specific activities Did you and your husband (wife) vote in the l956 Presidential election? H: Yes No W :________Yes No Did you and your husband (wife) vote in the l960 presidential election? H: Yes _______No , W:_________Yes ______No Where do you do the bulk of your grocery shOpping? (interviewer: area and store(s) ) Where do you do the bulk of your shOpping for clothing? (interviewer: area principally, but record store is volunteered.) -14.. 83. Do you regularly employ someone to help out with the housework? Yes No in conclusion, we have a few questions on local government. Would you please respond to each statement as I read It by indicating one of the preferences on this card? (Hand respondent card V) l. The people who live in the city of Lansing are more like the residents of Detroit than they are like the peOple living in the Lansing suburban area. 2. The township form of government is more satisfactory than a city government even though city government might be more efficient and economical in the long run. SA A U D SD 3. The history of the relations between Lansing and Its suburban neighbors suggests that Lansing City government cannot be trusted by suburbanites. A. Many people living in the city of Lansing would feel out of place if they lived in a township. 5. A different kind of person is likely to run for office in the city of Lansing than in a township. SA A U 0 SD 6. (use only for Haslett) if this area ever became part of the city of Lansing or East Lansing you would want to move further out. 7. The peeple in the township live a more informal and friendly life than the people of Lansing. SA A U D SD 8. Lansing provides more governmental advantages for residents than does government in the townships. 9. Enterprising people are more likely to move from a big city and settle in the suburbs. l0. Host issues in Lansing are decided through politicklng. ll. A school child, interested in seeing how democracy works, would do better visiting an annual township meeting than a Lansing city council meeting. /cl -(5- IIllllllllllllll