OVERDUE FINES:
25¢ per day per item

RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:
\

Place in book netum to remve
charge from circulaflon records

 

 

 

FAMILY WORK: THE UTILIZATION
OF TIME IN THE MAINTENANCE OF
SINGLE PARENT AND WORKING

MOTHER FAMILIES

BY

Melvin Samuel Kalish

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1981

© Copyright by
MELVIN SAMUEL KALISH
1981

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Esther,
and my children, Aaron, Naomi and Miriam, who have lived
my doctoral program as much as I have, and who have been

a blessing and my support at every step along the way.

iii

ivv‘

J‘s
1h

5 n.
”I

.v-
u,

(‘4

n.
U

   

'
‘Q

'at
III

I

a}

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank my advisor, Professor Fred Waisanen,
for the years of guidance and support he has given me, and
for our many discussions which helped to shape the present
research. I am indebted as well to the other members of my
dissertation committee, Professor Al Beegle, Professor Tom
Conner, and Professor Bill Faunce, each of whom contributed
key advice and guidance as this research progressed through
design, execution and writing. I would also like to thank
Professor Jim Zuiches and Professor Cy Stewart for their
helpful advice and suggestions. It is a pleasure to ac-
knowledge the friendly help and support I received over the
years from Marilyn Lovall and Judy Flositz.

I will always be grateful to my staff of inter-
viewers and screeners, who worked long and hard to finish
our survey on time. I am especially grateful to Myrna
Reynolds, who showed me how to adapt my instruments to the
practical necessities of survey research, and helped me
keep things running smoothly throughout the field work.
Special thanks to Bec Crandall and Delores Wood who helped
me to put my interviewing staff together. I greatly appre-

ciate the contributions of my wife, Esther, who took part

iv

.
r. O.‘
wood

.-- 1

0". 1

u
a” O
U... 4

n.‘- g
" d‘
y‘,‘

in this study from the beginning, as an interviewer, coder,
typist and proofreader.

I am very grateful to the many Lansing mothers who
took time out from their busy and in some cases very diffi-
cult lives to share something of their experience with us.

I wish to acknowledge the contribution of The Michi-
gan State University Agricultural Experiment Station, which
helped to defray the cost of printing survey materials. The
Automobile Club of Michigan donated Lansing maps in support
of the survey. The Michigan State University Department of
Sociology provided funds for the computer analysis. The
Department of Computer Services, California State University
Dominguez Hills kindly assisted me in completing the com-
puter analysis.

Finally, this dissertation owes a great deal to the

inspired editing of Beverly Godwin.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .

Chapter
INTRODUCTION . . . . . .

I.

II.

III.

A.
B.
C.

E.
F.

The Situation . .
Emergent Problems
The Study . . . .

Research Rationale
Description of the
Value of the Study

Definitions . . .
Actors . . . . .
Unit of Analysis
Acted Upon . .
Actions . . . .
Consequences .

Limitations of the

TEORY O O O C O C O O O

A.

Study
Plan of the Dissertation

Theoretical Perspectives .

Structural Functionalism
Symbolic Interactionism

Role Theory . .
Conflict Theory

Systems Perspective

Synthesis . . .

Research and Theory
Nuclear Family Maintenance

The Use of Time
Working Wives .
Single Parents .
Satisfaction . .
A Theory of Family
Hypotheses . . . .
Variables . . . .

THE SURVEY . . . . . . .

A.

Methodology . .
Population . . .
Study Sample . .

vi

Maintenance

ix

23

24
24
31
33
35
36
41
43
44
47
50
55
59
62
68
70

72
72

73
74

Sampling Method . .
Screening Method . . .
Data Collection Method

Required Screening Sample
B. The Survey Instruments and Materi
Interviewer Questionnaire

Field Test Feedback Form

Screening Record Form
Screening Interview .
Letter of Introduction
Informed Consent Form
Family Work Interview
Income Card . . . . .
Performance Worksheet
Interview Record Form
Reinterview Form . . .

Non-Respondent Interview

Non-Respondent Data Collection

Call— Back Record Form
C. Measures . . . . . . . .
D. Procedures . .‘. . . . .
Staffing . . . . . . .
Interviewers . . . . .
Field Supervisor .
Telephone Screeners
Training . . . . . . .
Field Testing . . . .
Sampling Procedures .
Screening Procedures .
Interviewing Procedures

Data Assessment Procedures
Data Handling and Preparation

Data Analysis . . . .
IV. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . .

A. The Data . . . . . .
Interviewer Data .
Screening Data .
Interview Data .
Verification . .
Reliability . .
Validity . . . .
Screening Error Check

B. Background Characteristic

C. Task Performance . . . .
D. Satisfaction . . . . . .

V. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . .
A. Summary . . . . . . .

Findings . . . . . . .

vii

S

a

ls

74
77
77
81
82
83
83
84
85
86
86
87
90
90
90
91
92
93
93
93
96
97
97
100
100
101
104
104
106
108
111
113
113

115

115
116
117
117
119
119
124
142
143
148
159

167

167
171

”B.

C.

Discussion .

Relation of Findings to Prior
Research
Conclusions
Recommendations
Research Recommendations

Policy Recommendations .

LIST OF REFERENCES .

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

viii

177
177
183
189
189
190
196
208

233

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

LIST OF TABLES

Interviewer Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Marital Status of Female Single Parent
Family Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Employment Status of Mothers . . . . . . .

Age Distribution of Married Mothers . . . .
Age Distribution of Single Mothers . . . . .
Racial/Ethnic Distributions of Mothers . . .
Educational Attainment of Mothers . . . . .

Occupational Distributions of Employed

wome n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Income Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . .

Families by Number of Children Living
With Thm I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Background Characteristics by Marital
and Employment Status . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Task Performance Hours by Mother's
Marital and Employment Status . . . . . .

Mean Assistance Received From Businesses
and Community Services by Mother's
Marital and Employment Status . . . . . .

Mean Satisfactions by Marital and Employment
Status 0 O O C O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0

Mean Task Performance Hours For Married
Mother 8 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0

Mean Task Performance Hours For Married
Mothers Working Full Time . . . . . . . .

Mean Task Performance Hours For Married
Mothers Working Part Time . . . . . . . .

ix

116

126
127
129
130
131

133

135
136

138

145

149

155

160

209

210

211

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Mothers

Mean Task
Married

Performance Hours For Married
Not Working . . . . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Single

Performance Hours For Single
Working Full Time . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Single
Working Part Time . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Single
Not working 0 O O O O O O O I 0

Performance Hours For Separated

Performance Hours For Separated
Working Full Time . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Separated
Working Part Time . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Separated
Not working 0 O O O O O O O O 0

Performance Hours For Divorced

Performance Hours For Divorced
Working Full Time . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Divorced
Working Part Time . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Divorced
Not working 0 O O O O O O O O 0

Performance Hours For Widowed

Performance Hours For Widowed
Working Full Time . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Widowed
Working Part Time . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Widowed
Not Working . . . . . . . . . .

Performance Hours For Never
Mothers . . . . . . . . . . . .

X

212

213

214

215

216

217

218’

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

ru-
-..

QI!
nud

36.

37.

38.

Mean Task
Married

Mean Task
Married

Mean Task
Married

Performance Hours For Never
Mothers Working Full Time . . . . . . 230

Performance Hours For Never
Mothers Working Part Time . . . . . . 231

Performance Hours For Never
Mothers Not WOrking . . . . . . . . . 232

xi

RA-

‘~..

g.

N“

A a

‘vo

ABSTRACT
FAMILY WORK: THE UTILIZATION OF TIME

IN THE MAINTENANCE OF SINGLE PARENT
AND WORKING MOTHER FAMILIES

BY

Melvin Samuel Kalish

The number of single parents and working mothers
has greatly increased in recent years. These statuses
pose special problems for their occupants in the area of
family maintenance, and in particular, in their use of
time. The problems are societal as well as individual,
concerning as they do the well-being and employment of
tens of millions of people, and the upbringing of tens of
millions more.

The family was conceptualized as a social system
with the positions of child and mother and/or father.
Family maintenance is the most basic family process. The
family maintenance tasks are allocated to 3 roles: pro-
vider, housekeeper, and child care agent. Although the
provider role is traditionally assigned to fathers, and
the housekeeper and child care roles to mothers, perform-
ance is often shared. Single parents and working wives,
in particular, find themselves performing all 3 family

maintenance roles.

Melvin Samuel Kalish

Prior theory and research suggest that nuclear
families tend to be largely, but not entirely, independent
of others in meeting their basic needs. Parents perform
most family maintenance, but they receive some help from
their children, kin, friends and neighbors. A theory was
developed relating family type, the utilization of time in
family maintenance and satisfaction. Hypotheses were de-
rived concerning these issues.

A comparative cross-sectional survey was conducted
in Lansing, Michigan to obtain the data to test these hypo-
theses. Representative samples of married and single moth-
ers were obtained by random digit dialing and telephone
screening. A total of 128 married mothers and 102 single
mothers were interviewed face-to-face utilizing a structured
interview with largely closed-ended questions.

It was found that single mothers perform few, if any,
more hours of family maintenance than married mothers. They
do tend to spend more time earning a living and less time at
housekeeping. Single mothers receive considerable help from
their children, but no more than married mothers.

Both nuclear and mother-child families derive sup-
port from persons outside the immediate family. Kin provide
some assistance, but not more for single mothers than mar-
ried. Friends give considerably more help to single mothers

than married. Neighbors help out a little in both cases.

Melvin Samuel Kalish

Ex-husbands contribute a few hours a week to their former
familys' maintenance efforts. As a result of the absence
of a second parent in the family, however, the mother-
child family makes do with far fewer maintenance hours than
the nuclear family.

The employed single mother does less housekeeping
and child care and keeps her total family maintenance hours
from rising very much, if at all. Her children support
her employment by spending more time at family maintenance.
If she is employed fulltime she receives less support from
relatives and friends than otherwise.

Married mothers who are employed do less housekeeping
and child care and more family maintenance overall than
married mothers who are not employed. Their children and
relatives support their employment with additional family
maintenance help. Families of married mothers employed full-
time total the most maintenance hours of all family types.

Single mothers are somewhat less satisfied with their
lives than married mothers. The life satisfaction of married
mothers varies inversely with the number of hours they spend

at family maintenance.

.

I

.IV

.015

"(c I: 'V
v. .sQAI“
. 0'
. h

.o

i. .h\
«a

an. H.
v. . .
Av .s
a» u
-.. 3
.s :s

5-.
.
Ԥ\ut

R“.

 

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The family is undergoing rapid change worldwide.
The "normal“ nuclear family of the United States and other
Western societies has become the exception in the last three
decades, while single parent families and families with
working mothers have proliferated at a rapid rate. The
nature of the family, its workings and its needs are vastly
different today from what they were not very many years ago.

This situation poses a challenge and an opportunity
to sociologists. On the one hand, family theory, which has
been developing in parallel with the recent changes in the
family, is challenged to keep up with these changes and to
incorporate them. On the other hand, the diversity of
family structures and functional arrangements in the United
States today presents us with an unusual natural laboratory
in which to study the nature of the family.

The challenge is social as well, demanding signifi-
cant social change, as the changing family_impacts the
economic and other major institutions. The opportunity here
is to create a more equitable and flexible society in the
process of accommodating to the changes and diversity of the

family.

.nQIU
Joel‘-

..‘..-

.g..-»

 

. .

A
.0 .-
1. u-
A—gq -

I..‘-.

n I -..
:33.-.

I“;
an
4 J.

g
..~C-~
'§..a ‘
a
t.‘
-
~ * ‘.-
u, .n
.-
D
.
0‘.
‘1
v
‘I
‘1
‘a.
'I :-
~ ‘
.k.”
'
._ ‘
.":s
u.‘ I
he"

2

This volume reports the results of a study of family
maintenance, that process which is directed toward the con-
tinued survival of individual families. A theory of family
maintenance is developed, which incorporates single parent
as well as nuclear families. This theory is productive
of testable hypotheses. A sample survey was conducted to
obtain the data to test these hypotheses. The results are
examined, and the implications for family theory and policy

are discussed.

A. The Situation

 

Alternatives to the one—income nuclear family are
rapidly growing in numbers and importance. The number of
women in the United States living as single parent family
heads has risen steadily from 1.3 million in 1950 to 5.3
million in 1979, an increase of 308%. During the same time
period the number of nuclear families increased by only 31%.
From 1970 to 1979 alone the number of female headed single
parent families has increased 81%, while the number of
nuclear families has decreased by 3.5% (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1950, 1971, 1980a).

As a result of these trends, female single parents,
who headed 6% of all families with dependent children in
1950, headed 17% of such families in 1979. Female single
parents are concentrated in the central cities, where they
headed 28% of all families with dependent children in 1979

(0.8. Bureau of the Census, 1950, 1980a).

N.

dd
'A"
UP‘
a
5'2, -.-.
a

‘V
annoy. n... a
y
In“... -b vo-

I)
u

u
I.
n

are

U)

‘0“

The sa~~-~‘

‘39..“

A:-" u
isDil. D

.on‘-»
a

-
.3..~ q“ "A
*Q..:‘ a

N ‘
a
Fay.
-“.““ be. 0

RI.

‘-
.
-...-. 4 :.
.“~‘~a so
0...
in R
A...“ .
‘ n
-
C.:
”A ‘ .
s": ..,._
K. ‘.-‘.
~Q
~.
-. R A..-
..U 'v..\
a
.‘ .
v._‘..“(I

0"-
N
C “‘
~ >
I. ‘
s:
..“‘s :51
‘ 4
y“.
‘l'..
.41

VI
.
.
.m.‘
. n
..
' “HQ! ‘A‘
"

 

3

Divorce, the rate of which has more than doubled
since 1965 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1979, U.S. National
Center For Health Statistics, 1980), has been the major
contributor to this rise. Divorced women comprised 12% of
female family heads in 1950 and 33% of female family heads
in 1979 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1951, 1980a). Approxi-
mately forty-two percent of female single parent family
heads are divorced (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980b).

The second major contributor to the increase in the number
of single parents is the rapidly growing trend for never-
married women who become pregnant to bear and raise these
children. From 1970 to 1979 the percentage of female single
parent family heads who have never been married more than
doubled from 8 to 17 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
1980b).

As of March 1979, 9,828,000 children under eighteen
were living with their mothers in single parent families.
This constituted 16% of all children growing up in the
United States. Of these, 3,649,000 were Black children,
constituting 39% of all Black children growing up in the
United States (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980c).

Many female single parents and their children live
in poverty. The median income of families with own children
younger than 18 years old maintained by women with no hus-
band present was $2035 in 1978, compared with $20,410 for
husband-wife families with dependent children. The poverty

threshold in that year was $6,662 for a nonfarm family of

.
9“"
...o O

a
I. %"

.‘.v
I

cu 3

u- U

u
D‘.‘

-
cub-o.

a
.G.:
W.--

an
_"Al
{-O UV.

‘ I
- .:.
“a . I

.'.‘
:u
'“bto

I
~ "e. .
a... I

““.‘

O
A.~

‘u.';

v

.A
g

‘ cu

 

v
‘ .
I‘-
e
I. I
‘
r.
e
a. .
~_-:9_ '
"
In“
‘0. I
I ‘u .
in. '
o
O
‘Q
~
\
'svn
‘I
It.
"i
b. I".
i
‘
.
.“n.
‘.‘\ ‘s
V

4
four. While the number of United States families living
below the poverty level declined from 8.0 million in 1959
to 5.3 million in 1978, the number of female-headed
families in poverty rose from 1.6 million (20% of the
total) in 1959 to 2.7 million (50% of the total) in 1978.
Thirty-one percent of women maintaining families with no
husband present, and 51% of related children in such fami-
lies, lived in poverty in 1978, compared with 9% of all
persons maintaining families and 16% of related children
in families (U.S. Bureau of the Census, l978a,l980b).

Most female single parents work for a living. As
of March 1978, 55% of separated women and 67% of divorced
women with preschool children were in the labor force.
Sixty-two percent of separated women and 81% of divorced
women with school-aged children only were in the labor
force (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1979).

The trend toward mothers working is not confined
to single parents. In 1950, 3.6 million wives with chil-
dren younger than 18 years old were in the labor force,
28% of those with school-aged children, and 12% of those
with preschool children. These numbers have increased
steadily and rapidly, so that by 1978 12.5 million wives
with children younger than 18 years old were in the labor
force, 57% of those with school-aged children only, and
42% of those with preschool children (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1979). In 1979, 24 million children lived in nu-

clear families in which their mother worked (Johnson, 1980).

Q

"‘ .i'.’e a:
71.3935 55

. g a
Ora ’3' ‘
nun-U .

an.

.... . SS SE'.’

,, . . ‘
"“vv- ~..2

‘.

sub- . -_‘

 

‘ ‘ ‘1
wer- .‘ ... 5-...
o
I.
Q

.
“'e. _ l.‘
.~.5....C ‘

 

 

- ..‘a~..
_ III
-hu ‘..~ '
. ‘
Q
-“‘a ‘
¢.:~‘.
.| .
- i
: .a‘h ..
M.‘ ‘ -Qv
C
I‘QA“! . ~‘~
‘v-v.“~

' . O
'39-‘- s.A” '.
.‘ ~
“."~4 .
A: .
U. ‘05"“q ‘
‘Ad
\
.. .. l
c ’ a
U l.
. ~. 1.“. c
-
. .
‘Ac‘ :“ a
“‘30:
‘b
F. ‘
\¢=‘a ~‘ :
u‘ ‘ ‘
“‘.
\
.. C
4. §

.\_.
~.
-- .
-
~““e‘ \‘A
s
‘e.'_‘:
6‘ '
~..e tub“ I
u.‘

5

B. Emergent Problems

 

The problems arising out of the attempts of people
to live as single parents and as working wives may be
viewed as being on two levels, that of the family and its
members, and that of the society and its institutions.

Families containing a working wife or a single
parent have problems which are either not present in or
not as severe in one-income nuclear families. The primary
individual and family level problem in both types of fami-
lies is a shortage of time. Single parent or working wife
status increases one's risk of having too much to do, not
enough time to do it in, not enough assistance, and con-
flicting demands on one's time and energy.

The family with a single parent must find a way to
adequately accomplish all of the tasks necessary to main-
tain itself without the contribution of a second parent.
The family with a working wife must find a way to adequately
accomplish all of the tasks necessary to maintain itself
even though the female parent is generally in the position
of having taken on a.provider function without having given
up her homemaker and child care responsibilities. The work-
ing female single parent, of course, is faced with both of
these difficulties.

A few husbands are not employed and so may be able
to contribute more to the other family maintenance tasks.
Higher income families can hire others to perform some of

the household tasks. The family blessed with a large

6
support network may be able to make arrangements with rela-
tives, friends or neighbors. In any case, careful time-
scheduling and time-budgeting and increased efficiency may
go far to make up the lost time. The least tractable
problem in this area, and the one most discussed in applied
and lay publications, is that of providing adequate,
affordable day care so that the female parent can go to
work.

The efforts of working wives and single parents to
earn an income are often hampered by a lack of appropriate
education or work experience, or by an inability to sur-
mount age, sex and/or racial barriers to better jobs and
better pay. The working wife is often at work out of neces-
sity to increase the family's income, or at least in order
to contribute to important practical family goals. Her
needs and problems are real. Nevertheless, the two-income
family has the highest median income of all major categories
of family, and can often afford to purchase some of the
services it requires to maintain itself.

The female single parent is generally in a far more
difficult situation. She provides all or most of her
family's income, but has access to, if anything, less sup-
port than the working wife. Thus, only 67% of female heads
of families with related children under eighteen worked in
1978, and, of these, only 52% worked full-time year-round.
Twenty-eight percent of female-headed families relied on

public assistance for all or part of their income in that

uc: '
v..-
o

‘0‘.

a. .'
ova...

:'--
1....

I“-

A.-.

5..
V van-

’1
s-

7
year, compared to 2% of male-headed families (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 1980d). The net result is that the female
single parent often lacks money as well as time.

Single parenthood produces, as well, problems that
arise out of the unique characteristics of the situation.
The number of parents in the single parent family is, of
course, half of that in a nuclear family, but there is
almost as much work to be done. The presence of only a
single parent in the family makes it likely that she will
have to go outside the immediate family for child care,
adult companionship and support. Generally there is no
other adult in the family to "step in" in case of illness
or other emergency.

It is also necessary for the single parent to take
on roles generally performed by persons of the opposite
sex. She may be unfamiliar, inexperienced and perhaps un-
comfortable with these roles. They may be structurally
difficult for her to perform, or culturally disapproved of
(Glasser and Navarre, 1965; Nye and Berardo, 1973).

The personal consequences of the combination of
circumstances confronting the single parent often include
fatigue, loneliness, anxiety and depression, and an in-
creased likelihood of physical illness (Ferri and Robin-
son, 1976; Weiss, 1979).

Taken in the aggregate, the problems of working
wives and single parents constitute a growing social prob-

lem. Rapid social change in the family institution is

i¢~l0.

a

C.-

9,.

F.

aw

«in

«v

~‘Q
u~.

.4
.
.

8
creating difficulties and demands for compensating cultural
and structural changes. As the United States Bureau of the
Census (1977a) put it:

Families headed by women who have no husband
present represent a growing proportion of all
families in this country. For many women, being
a female family head is a transitional status
which often subsequently changes by entry into
first marriage for never-married women, recon-
ciliation for separated women, and remarriage for
divorced or widowed women. Nevertheless, many
more women are passing through this increasingly
common life cycle stage than in the past. Effec-
tive response to the needs of these women and
their family members (particularly their children)
relative to employment, welfare, education, child
care arrangements, and a variety of related social
and economic requirements constitutes a major
challenge to governmental and private agency plan—
ners and service personnel. (p. 5)

The consequences of these problems are not limited
to the parents and their families. The welfare of a large
and growing number of citizens cannot help but affect the
.general welfare. Then again, the ability of millions of
parents to work and support their families must have an

effect on the national economy.

c. The Study

 

This section discusses the need for family research,
describes the present study, and defines its contribution

to theory and practice.

Research Rationale and Goals

 

The discussion so far has described a situation of
rapid social change in our society, the development and

proliferation of new family forms, and the problems

 

- .:
a: :Lence.
"0 wscna.

v.
Ani- :l

v

' n M
1.x see“ c.
.‘ ‘ “15'
“.3. V.-.
.5 3:” £43....

9: .
C‘ II On"
Iii-O" OVA-u-

:qu
.‘i. C

Q.

‘ . : I:':—
Uan‘.. y b“

. .
..“a.,'p :vA-
. ‘QO- ‘ ..
'
c..~

.
I
a‘ I"‘ -
u.“ ‘ A‘
‘ re- . h
. I
:‘An

‘9‘
h
u 5“... 5.:
.
-'.
"l'.. I ~ a .n
' ‘15..“
‘.‘
N n ’ .-
n.» H¥CH ‘A'
\"
-fl' 4..
.'\., ‘ A“ A:
V “g. V
K
\
f‘ "v-
Q ‘4‘
C
t‘ .
'
sui‘e 32’s“
4‘s v.

‘é =‘ s“
w‘ 2‘ .
u“ A
\J‘
.
'-
o::§.‘,
’v‘ i -~
\
~“o‘ .

9
experienced by people who are participating in this change.
The personal and social consequences of this situation have
also been explored. As stated in the introduction, the
social scientist will want to know a great deal more than
is now known about the structure and function of the new
family forms.

Herzog and Sudia (1968), for example, state that
there is a need to study the fatherless family in the United
States as a family form in its own right, its strengths as
well as weaknesses, and its similarities to, as well as
differences from, the two-parent family. They would like
to see research concerning the coping behavior of female
single parents and their families, and the support they
receive from relatives, friends and the community.

The need for social and cultural adjustment to the
charuges taking place in the family has also been discussed.
That; part of the adjustment which is designed and guided

3h0tfiLd.be based upon well-reasoned social policy, which,
in tnlrn, should be grounded in a solid understanding of the
Phenomena involved. Cogswell and Sussman (1972) emphasize
the need for research on variant family forms to guide the
prOVision of services and the modification of practices.

A great deal has been written in recent years about
Simgle parents and working wives. There are statistical
rePorts and analyses, policy studies, articles interpreting
the situation and trends for the general public, and books

deSCribing the experiences of one or a small number of

Q
' I ‘ Q

‘ ‘ 4":

li!"‘ .

Lu'u. I gnu-ho:

. A I
.I “7“. s‘
.u o...-'

:96 lifesqu

in skills t

U' | . _
‘N I. .9 r
Oo'e H —-e.

R“:

by...

. . -
nu- .v'a ‘0
...e ... _ h

, ., .
.1 . ,
.-

““‘.-.es, 9

[TI

.q . ‘

-:‘ :‘v‘ :-

0.... ‘JNU.~
.

1 . .

.5." :“AF

:1:‘.I5."‘S

I .

‘II‘N-

-‘ H In-
ebugi..s ‘03“:
. C

IN; V

“.8-

1‘3: a... ".

.Vi‘, U‘_ .‘

‘ I

.e:b:v~. ~

UbkvA‘. ‘
1

5‘3”“ to ...
'4

a ‘U a.

.A
'vncaV .
:.-~ '
‘4.»Tne :
\A

3‘4

10

individuals. A lot of persuasive material has appeared

in print, supportive of one perspective or another on the

new lifestyles. How-to books attempt to impart knowledge

and skills that the authors feel will enable people to
live better lives as single parents.

Considerable exploratory research has been done on
the lives of single parents and working wives and their
families, generating a great deal of descriptive detail.

Their samples have usually been drawn from special problem

populations or have otherwise been non-random. Study

designs generally have not been comparative.
There has been some theoretical writing in this
area, but it has not usually been tied to the empirical

research. There has now been sufficient exploratory re-

search to support the statement and empirical testing of
a ccnnparative model of family survival behavior.

The goals of the present study are, then:

1. The further development of explanatory theory
concerning the survival behaviors of traditional nuclear,

tw<:>--:J'.ncome and single parent families, their determinants

and outcomes , and

2. The development of a body of knowledge to facil-

it3ate effective intervention and the making of rational and
humane social policies toward meeting the needs of two-

J‘nCICnue and single parent families in our society.

vq

on.

.Ol b

u..
“Q.

Q: t .
“.a

 

'o
u

'Q...
.

 

m.

o
' 3
u“

 

11
Description of the Study
The present study investigates the family mainten-
ance process. Particular attention is paid to this process
in two-income families and single parent families, types of
family which have special problems in this regard. Within
the general area of family maintenance the focus is on the
utilization of time in the performance of those tasks
required to maintain a viable family. A theory of family
maintenance is developed within a sociological framework
which combines elements of the structural-functional, sym-
bolic interactionist, conflict and systems perspectives.
Hypotheses are derived concerning family type differences
in family maintenance behavior and outcomes.
The hypotheses are tested utilizing data obtained
by empirical research. The research design is that of a
Cross-sectional survey, utilizing a sample of City of Lan-
Sixug, Michigan mothers, stratified so as to obtain approxi-
mately equal subsamples of single parents and married
mOthers. Respondents were acquired by a two-stage sampling
Process, utilizing random digit dialing and telephone
Screening. Each respondent was interviewed face-to-face,
uti-lizing a structured interview averaging one hour in
duration.
Information was acquired in three general areas:
1Packground data, task performance and satisfactions. The
basic background data obtained were the respondent's

marital status, employment status, age and education, as

:2; as he: :

I
:nvu:nn° ‘:
.g.-Molbv I.“

.‘ ::-~ - so .‘ '
.5 .‘u..' “-31
O
,.
Cytgp .n no
v-“uH .06 .o
I

Cgtfloanan do -
flour—a can. I

U
.33 33.312313:

‘W‘QQ: ‘ a- .
f‘D-uu gnu, .
' I

.:-3 :asx :' ::

2:33: an‘ .

I v...‘

.‘N 1. '
§ ..1..

one!
. ".o-~.‘__

.. .
u. :e".‘—‘ .U.
- ‘.un—-

can
‘.
a ‘Q
\ QR- '
1. Q i _
.H v. ‘ .9,“
I‘.‘ u
"‘-n .
.9.“ :e‘ “Au.
. “who:
Q
o“ .
I... ‘

‘
3:3 -
n..
n
q
.!
Nan ~A
‘U...da" ..
u C ‘3‘
a
Q. ‘1
U. “a ‘
Rt
‘ I
“ uu:".-
. V -“

 

0‘ \
.ble Q“ .
5'" :v-
:I'
a.‘ ‘
.\ .

‘A
s:“ .
u. :- c‘
Q a.
‘005AF
s
~'.
.‘Q
‘a in
La: . I
‘ .

12

well as her family's size and income. The key task per-
formance data consisted of an accounting of the time spent
in family maintenance activities during the seven days pre-
ceding the interview, broken down into five categories of
maintenance tasks and seven categories of task performers.
The maintenance task categories were: income acquisition,
purchasing, physical maintenance, feeding, and child care.
The task performer categories were: respondent (female
parent), children at home, husband or ex-husband, rela-
tives, inwlaws, friends, and neighbors. Information regard-
ing utilization of business and community services for help
En performing these tasks was also obtained. The survey
also obtained data regarding the respondent's satisfaction
with her home, meals, family life, social life, free time,
and. financial situation, plus general life satisfaction and
hepp iness . 1

Analysis of these data was by means of examination

and.<:omparison of the resultant statistics and the testing

0 f the hypotheses .

Kaine of the Study .
This study is significant in a number of ways. It
addresses an area of theory much mentioned but little
Cieveloped or investigated. It bases research on theory
aIKS directs the results of the research toward the develop-
ment of theory and practice. The survey was unusual in

£— . '
‘JIlS area of research in being based on a representative

13
random sample and being of a comparative nature. The
research is also more quantitative than has generally been
the case in single parent or two-income family research.

This study serves both theoretical and instrumental
purposes. To understand the family today it is necessary
to understand the nature and functioning of single parent
and two-income families and their relationships with their
social environment. This study produces a relevant body of
knowledge and contributes to the development of explanatory
theory in the area.

In order to respond appropriately to the needs of
single parent and two-income families it is necessary to
know a great deal about their needs, resources and family
maintenance behavior. This study produces a data base
descriptive of the resources and efforts of such families
which can support, with greater clarity than has previously
been available, policy decision-making and planning toward
helping them meet their needs.

The information produced by this study serves as
a baseline against which the results of further studies may
be compared. Studies of urban/rural, ethnic and national
differences would serve to further enrich family theory and
assist human service providers. Replication of this study
would provide very useful longitudinal data concerning the
rapid social changes taking place in the family institution

and the position of women in American society.

_ ,.-..._

Fan—5*“ , duo. -"— —'

14
More generally, it is hoped that this dissertation
may serve to stimulate more professional interest in
family maintenance and that the theoretical synthesis will
prove useful to others. Finally, it is hoped that the
survey methodology will serve as an example of what may

be accomplished with the use of random-digit dialing.

D. Definitions
This section discusses the meanings of a number of

key terms used in this dissertation.

Actors

One of the central impediments to the development
of family theory has been the lack of an agreement as to
what constitutes a family (Bell and Vogel, 1960). For the
purposes of this research, the Census Bureau definition is
the most appropriate:

The term "family" refers to a group of two or
more persons related by blood, marriage, or
adoption and residing together in the same house-
hold. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1976:3.)

Several additional distinctions made by the Census

Bureau will also be helpful: V
A primary family consists of the head of a house-
hold and all other persons in the household
related to the head.
A secondary family comprises two or more persons
such as guests, lodgers or resident employees
and their relatives, living in a household and

related to each other but not to the household
head.

A "subfamily" is a married couple with or without
children, or one parent with one or more unmarried

i

R.
J.

.A.:
'vu“

I. I
a...

n ‘ ‘ I
ha
“"‘

n~.
'6.

5' ‘
‘0

'h

I“...
“.‘

15
children under 18 years old, living in a
household and related to, but not includ-
ing, the head of the household or his wife.
(U.S. Bureau of the Census, l976:3.)

It is implicit in the definitions of "primary
family" and "subfamily" that subfamilies are part of pri-
mary families, and not "families" in their own right.

A "household" comprises all persons who occupy
a "housing unit", that is, a house or apartment
or other group of rooms, or a room that consti-
tutes "separate living quarters." (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, l976:3.)

The Census Bureau defines the head of a household
or family as "the person 'maintaining' the household or
family“ (l977b:2). In this study, husband and wife are
considered joint heads. It is also perceived that house-
hold and family maintenance are, in general, shared by the
head(s) and others, a "head" being distinguished as a per-
son who is responsible for the maintenance.

A "nuclear family" consists of a husband, wife and
children (Christensen, 1964). A "single parent family"
consists of a mother or father and her or his children.
The ”immediate family" is the single parent family or nu—
clear family. An extended family member is any relative
of a member of a nuclear or single parent family. Thus a
relative of a female single parent's ex-husband, her child's
paternal grandmother for example, would be considered an
extended family member. The families with whom this study

is concerned all contain at least one dependent child (i.e.,

a child less than 18 years of age).

.0.

3‘

a.

gm.

3‘

16

A parent is usually defined as the natural or
adoptive mother or father, or the stepmother or step-
father of a dependent child. For the purposes of this
study, this definition is extended to include foster
parents and extended family members who are responsible
for and caring for (i.e., parenting) a dependent child.
The definitions of the various kinds of family, above,
are also extendedtx>accommodate these kinds of parents.

The number of parents in a family determines
whether it is a "single parent family" or a "nuclear
family", regardless of other adults who may reside in the
household with the family. Such individuals, and others
who may be of assistance, are considered part of the fam-

ily's social environment and constitute family resources.

Unit of Analysis

 

This study focuses on individuals as actors. In
particular, the female family head or husband and wife
working together are seen as acting to maintain the family
by acting themselves and also by organizing the actions of
others within and outside of the family. They are acting
for and within the context of the family. The primary unit
of analysis of this study is the female family head, but
an important secondary unit of analysis is the family as
a whole. Similarly, although the focus is on the outcomes
for the female family head, the wider concern is for the

consequences for other family members and for the family

a:
all

“no

I‘AI

A A

boy

Gig

on.

:n-.

d.. v

C»
v. ..
-\d

‘R.

n.‘ _

8
Q‘.

 

A

A
~
~

in?

V

‘1‘
h V

17
as a whole. Thus, the analysis may be said to be primarily
at the individual level, but also importantly at the family

unit level.

Acted Upon

 

The efforts of the actors act upon the basic life
necessities and resources convertible into them. The
basic life necessities are here taken to comprise food,
clothing, shelter, medical care and child care. Money is
the primary convertible resource, but others may include
any goods or services exchangeable for food, clothing,

shelter, medical care or child care.

Actions

The actions of interest comprise the behaviors of
family members and others in seeking to acquire the basic
life necessities for a family and provide them to its mem-
bers, and so maintain the survival of the members of the
family and the family unit. These behaviors include those
aimed at the acquisition and utilization of convertible
resources and of the required goods and services, physical
maintenance of belongings and care of dependent children.
These actions are referred to as the performance of main-
tenance tasks. Taken together they comprise the family
maintenance process.

Five categories of family maintenance tasks have
been distinguished: income acquisition, purchasing, phys-

ical maintenance, feeding and child care (see Chapter I,

-
~37
'v‘

u an
..‘.'

F a.“

0"

ay-
'0‘

|u

3‘».

o.‘
o...

3"

‘O0‘

a...
'bl

‘-

’(I

‘1)
g l

 

‘:

A '._

0'.

18

Section C). Income acquisition consists of all activities
involved in performing a job, maintaining a business, or
receiving financial assistance. Applying for a job or for
financial assistance is included in this category. Help
provided to someone in performing income acquisition which
does not come under the definition of another category is
also included in this category. Commuting and attending
school are not considered income acquisition activities.

Purchasing, or shopping, is the trading of conver-
tible goods for goods and services. It includes shopping
for such goods as groceries, clothes, furnishings and appli-
ances, as well as for such services as repairs and haircuts.
Physical maintenance comprises all activities directed
toward the maintenance of the family's durable goods and
property. As such, it includes such tasks as doing laundry,
mending, housecleaning and straightening, yard and car care,
pet care, and repairs. Feeding consists of the preparation
of meals and snacks and cleaning up afterwards. Robinson
(1977b) calls physical maintenance and feeding, taken to-
gether, housework.

A primary activity is the main thing one is doing
at any given time. A secondary activity is one engaged in
while also performing a primary activity. Primary child
care consists of such activities as washing and dressing
children, reading to them, helping them with their homework,
playing and talking with them, and providing baby care and

medical care. Primary child care requires direct interaction

 

.
A O"
.8 '

.
.u n 4
“at“

5933
3.53

"‘.‘
'0'.

..
~"3
‘Oou

 

I U a.
'0'“

’5

)
'

DI

(l‘

I”

19
between the caring person and the child. Supervising,
minding, watching or baby-sitting a child is considered
secondary child care, as it is often done passively while
also performing a primary activity. Only primary acti-
vities are considered to contribute to the time spent in
family maintenance task performance.

Time spent at the tasks mentioned above must be
directed toward family maintenance to be counted as family
maintenance task performance (see Chapter III, Section B
and the Family Work Interview in Appendix B). The defini—
tions of the family maintenance task categories was sug-

gested by Robinson (l977b).

Consequences

The consequences of family maintenance task per-
formance may be viewed in terms of function and process.
If the task performance serves its function the family and
its members survive. This outcome is called "success."

If the task performance does not serve its function the
family and/or one or more of its members do(es) not sur-
vive. This outcome is called "failure." A family may
survive more or less well, with consequences for its mem-
bers' satisfactions.

The family maintenance process has its consequences
as well. The manner in which this process is carried out
may have an effect upon family members' workloads, and so
their satisfactions. The satisfactions of concern in this

study are those of the female family head with regard to

n e V
.-
.CU.

~-
in

«n
. 9
on.

‘1‘.

-:'
'e.

e. -
"on

...A

a.'

D:
in
(I)

v.

20
her home, meals, family life, social life, free time and
financial situation, as well as her general life satis-

faction and happiness.

E. Limitations of the Study

In order to complete a useful and meaningful piece
of work with limited time and money, limits have been placed
on the scope of this work. Despite the fact that approxi-
mately one in ten single parents is a man, the very differ—
ent circumstances and problems of single fathers are not
addressed in this research. The focus is entirely on
mothers.

One very appropriate coping response to single
parenthood, for those who have this option, is for the
single parent to move in with her parents. Again, these
single parent subfamilies live under very different cir-
cumstances than single parent families headed by a woman
who is also the head of her own household. The decision
was made early-on to focus on those families in which a
single parent is living independently and determining her
own family maintenance strategy.

The present research is concerned strictly with
urban mothers. The urban and rural situations are felt to
be too different to utilize a joint sample,-and there were
not the resources to study both environments. The urban
environment was selected because single parents are con-

centrated in the cities.

R.‘
"I

an
ooh

Q'v.‘

ISSE

" an
..UII

c".
D.

Q

.'

.A

v.“

1‘ a'.

21

Field work was conducted during a single season,
Spring, in a single city, Lansing, Michigan. Only school-
year observations were made. What family maintenance
activity arrangements are during the Summer or major
school vacations is an important question, but one which
is felt to be secondary to the present question, given the
current state of knowledge in this area.

A major methodological limitation was to a cross
sectional design. Dynamics can only be inferred. While
this design is appropriate to the goals of the present
research, a more ambitious research program would be en-

riched by a longitudinal approach.

F. Plan of the Dissertation

 

Chapter One has described the socio-economic situa-
tion to which this study is addressed, the problems emergent
from that situation, and the nature, value and limitations
of the present study. The following chapters will describe
the research in detail.

Chapter Two reviews the theoretical and research
literatures bearing on the subject. These are broken down
into theoretical frames of reference and theory and research
concerning nuclear family maintenance, the use of time,
working wives, single parents and satisfaction. It then
lays out the author's theoretical synthesis and hypotheses.

Chapter Three describes the methodology, materials
and procedures utilized in the empirical research. Chapter

Four defines and assesses the data set. It also describes

5...,

--U.

22
and compares the survey samples in terms of demographic,
task performance and satisfaction data obtained. Chapter
Four reports the results of the hypothesis tests.
Chapter Five reviews the study and its findings,
draws some conclusions, and makes a number of recommenda-

tions.

... a

‘
OF-

.-
on.

“Al

1

I—
'5.‘

 

s.‘

‘

L.
’

CHAPTER II
THEORY

Reviewers of family theory generally remark about
how sparse it is (Hill and Hansen, 1960; Nye and Berardo,
1966; Burr, 1973; Morgan, 1975; Burr, Hill, Nye and Reiss,
1979). The consensus is that the develOpment of family
theory is a huge, complex undertaking, only recently begun
in earnest. Proqress has been very slow, despite a great
deal of effort on the part of many scholars, and what
theory there is is considered preliminary and tentative.
On the other hand, the effort is accelerating, and there
appears to be a strong commitment to achieving real prog-
ress.

The status of family maintenance theory is parti-
cularly rudimentary. Despite the frequent mention of
family maintenance and survival in family literature there
has been little interest in theory development or research
on this subject. Only with the rapid and large scale
development of variations on the family, in particular
single parent and two-income families, has an interest in
family maintenance appeared. Even so, almost all of the
available literature to date has been prescriptive, de-

scriptive or policy oriented.

23

."

 

«as.
'i-.

c.. ~

.
2‘.
u."-

‘v

III

24
This chapter discusses the key sociological per-
spectives bearing on family maintenance, reviews some
recent theory and research, and states a theory of family
maintenance. Testable hypotheses are then derived from

the theory, and the key variables are listed.

A. Theoretical Perspectives

 

Social theory has tended to develop within general
frames of reference or perspectives. Several of the most
important of these bear on family maintenance. Structural-
functionalism and the systems perspective utilize the
concepts of system maintenance and survival. Symbolic
interaction, role theory and conflict theory concern them-
selves with aspects of human behavior which are useful in
understanding the family maintenance process.

This section briefly introduces these perspectives
and discusses those of their aspects which are relevant to
family maintenance. It concludes with a theoretical synthe-

sis incorporating these relevant aspects.

Structural Functionalism

A major organizing paradigm in sociology for the
last thirty years has been structural-functionalism. Over
the years a number of different formulations have developed
within this general frame of reference. What follows is an
outline of those aspects of the common core which pertain

to family maintenance.

25

Structural-functionalism focuses on the relation-
ships and integration of parts with each other and within
a whole (Pitts, 1964). The whole is a social entity, a
society or a family for example. The parts are either
smaller social entities or individuals. The relationships,
taken together, constitute the structure of the whole.
Often, the structure is said to relate positions rather
than smaller social entities or individuals. The latter
are then said to occupy the positions in the social struc-
ture. Thus we have the positions of child, mother and/or
father in the family.

Associated with each position is a set of roles
(Merton, 1957). Each role defines the normative behavioral
expectations for the occupant of that position in his or
her interaction with the occupant of some other position.

Structural-functionalism sees the whole and other
social entities as social systems (Hill and Hansen, 1960).
McIntyre (1966) defines a social system as "two or more
interdependent units which are at the same time actors and
social objects to each other" (p. 58). She characterizes
social systems as possessing the distinguishing attributes
of differentation, organization, boundary maintenance, and
equilibrium tendency.

That is, the actors occupy differentiated sta—
tuses or positions and perform differentiated
roles; there is some organized pattern governing
the relationships of the members and describing
their rights and obligations with respect to one

another, and some set of common norms and values,
together with various types of shared cultural

0".

“A!
'v.

(I)

‘A‘
"V

 

 

26
objects and symbols. A system is boundary-
maintaining in that there tends to be a tighter,
more integrated organization among its com-
ponents than there is between components and
elements outside the system. A social system
is characterized by an equilibrium tendency in
that the system has built-in mechanisms which
operate to hold it in some sort of steady state,
either a static or a moving stability, over a
period of time. (pp. 58, 59)

The definition of the meaning of "function" in
structural-functionalism has been problematical (see e.g.,
Merton, 1968; Hill and Hansen, 1960). Merton defines
functions as "those observed consequences which make for
the adaptation or adjustment of a given system" (1968:
105). McIntyre reports that "function" may refer to "the
contribution that an activity or an item makes to the
whole; the consequences of the activity or item for the
system being considered" or "the activity by which the
consequences referred to are attained" (1966:61).

Dysfunctions are "those observed consequences
which lessen the adaptation or adjustment of the system"
(Merton, 1968:105), "the negative consequences of an
activity for a given system" (McIntyre, 1966:61). It may
be useful to conceptualize a contribution as a variable
running from positive values through zero to negative
values. A positive contribution is functional, a nega-
tive contribution is dysfunctional and a zero contribution

is non-functional (Merton, 1968:105). Finally, "the same

activity may have utterly different consequences for the

 

eta-.1
I...

“vn
w.“

to:

ell

n9.

1"

“I

 

(
I“

27
individual, his family, and for society as a whole or for
some subsystem of the society" (McIntyre, 1966:61).
Merton (1968) writes that
Embedded in every functional analysis is some
conception, tacit or expressed, of the functional
requirements of the system under observation.
. . . this remains one of the cloudiest and empiri-
cally most debatable concepts in functional theory.
. . . the concept tends to be confined to the con-
ditions of "survival" of a given system; it tends
. . . to include biological as well as social
"needs." (p. 106)

McIntyre defines functional prerequisites as "the
problems which must be solved or the activities which must
be performed to insure the survival of a social system on
a given level" (1966:61). One way of looking at functional
prerequisites is then as "a list of activities which must
be performed if the society is to survive" (McIntyre,
1966:67).

Morgan (1975) states that Parsonian functionalism
dominates the sociology of the family. Hill and Hansen
(1960), while emphasizing the influence of the interactional
approach over the previous twenty years, acknowledge the
contribution of Parsons and find the structural-functional
approach to have been growing in influence at that time.

In this framework, then, the family is conceived of
as a component of society, a large social system. The
family itself is a social system, composed of individuals
who occupy positions within the family structure and who

interact according to the expectations of other family mem-

bers as institutionalized in the roles associated with

“v
's

28
those positions. Families may be thought of as containing
subsystems, for example the conjugal pair of husband and
wife in a nuclear family, or a mother-daughter dyad (Bell
and Vogel, 1960).

Family members perform functions for each other,
for the family and for society. The family as a whole per-
forms functions for its members and for society. Society,
in turn, performs functions for the family and its members.

Thus, the family as a whole has functions for
society. For example, it is said to be the primary sociali-
zation agent by which its society's basic values are trans-
mitted to the next generation. Thus also the individuals
within a family have functions for the family. For example,
at least one member of the family must do something to
acquire an adequate income for the family.

Family members are significant from the structural-
functional perspective, according to Hill and Hansen "for
their functions in the maintenance of the family system and,
ultimately, of the social system" (1960:303). The impor-
tance of the maintenance process in the family is under-
scored by the fact that "The family structure . . . is
oriented toward boundary maintenance of the system" (Hill
and Hansen, 1960:303). The centrality of the maintenance
process in the structural-functional framework is indicated
by the fact that "Behavior . . . is studied in the context
of its contribution to the maintenance of the structure"

(Hill and Hansen, 1960:303).

 

 

29

Hill and Hansen (1960) characterize structural-
functionalism as seeing "the family as open to outside
influences and transactions" (p. 303), while also maintain-
ing its boundaries. Bell and Vogel (1960) discuss the key
activities family members engage in in order to maintain
their families. In interaction with its social environ-
ment, the family trades its labor for rewards. These may
be the ultimate goods and services the family requires.

In the industrialized societies the rewards are more likely
to be in the form of money. The family then exchanges these
assets for the goods and services it requires. Internal to
the family additional tasks must be performed to maintain
the family. These may be categorized as the final prepara-
tion of goods, for example food, for family use, the main-
tenance of physical possessions, and caring for dependent
family members.

Two controversial issues within structural-
functionalism bear directly on the present study. Parsons
(1955) defines the basic role structure of the nuclear
family in terms of higher versus lower power and instru-
mental versus expressive functions. These latter he defines
thusly:

The area of instrumental function concerns re-
lations of the system to its situation outside
the system, to meeting the adaptive conditions
of its maintenance of equilibrium, and "instru-
mentally“ establishing the desired relations to
external goal-objects. The expressive area con-

cerns the "internal" affairs of the system, the
maintenance of integrative relations between the

30

members, and regulation of the patterns and ten-

sion levels of its component units. (Parsons,

1955:47)
The father/husband is allocated high power and specializes
in the instrumental function, the mother/wife high power
and the expressive function, the son/brother low power and
the instrumental function, and the daughter/sister low
power and the expressive function.

Pitts (1964) and Broderick (1971) discuss the con-
troversy concerning the allocation of the instrumental and
expressive family functions by sex. The implications of
this allocation in the present context would be a lack of
socialization of the female to the instrumental function,
and a lack of legitimacy of the female in performing the
instrumental function.

The expressive and instrumental functions are con-
ceptualized as "mutually exclusive categories of behavior"
(Broderick, 197l:4). Clearly, no matter how this aspect
of the perspective is interpreted, there is the strong
implication that it would be very difficult for a single
person to successfully perform major instrumental and ex-
pressive tasks. Thus, it would be very difficult to be a
married working mother. It would be even more difficult
to maintain a family as a single parent. Indeed, Zelditch
(1955) asks rhetorically, "Why after all, are two parents
necessary?" (p. 312)

The other controversial area in Parsonian functional

analysis of interest here is that of the isolation of the

31

American nuclear family. Pitts (1964) and Broderick (1971)
discuss this issue as well. The Parsonian argument is that
the isolation of the nuclear family developed out of the
functional requirement of industrial society for a mobile
work force. Extended family relations are perceived as
restrictive, and the isolated nuclear family as mobile
(Pitts, 1964). The isolated nuclear family is economically
independent of related nuclear families (Lee, 1979). Gibson
(1972) maintains that:

Parsons posits the isolated nuclear family be-

cause it is the normal household unit where

neither household arrangements nor source of in-

come bears any specific relation to either family

of orientation, and because its social status and

economic support depend on the husband's occupa-

tion which is held independently of any particu-

laristic relation to kinsmen. (p. 14)

The implication for the present study is that the family

would be expected to have little or no support from kin.

Symbolic Interactionism

Another major conceptual framework of sociology,
and perhaps the major paradigm in American family sociology
(Hill and Hansen, 1960) is symbolic interactionism. It has
been productive of a great deal of research (Broderick,
1971).

Symbolic interactionism conceptualizes the inter-
action of human beings as taking place largely through
significant symbols, the meanings of which are more or less
consensual. A language is a system of significant symbols.

People interact in accordance with how they understand or

«mu—D

 

., A =2” "'
, l
7 . __,_.. _ ._._.._ . '

 

 

32
define the situation (Stryker, 1959). That is, human
interaction proceeds on the basis of participating indi-
viduals' unique subjective realities, constructed on the
basis of information received through imperfect senses
and largely mediated or modified by symbols.

Symbolic interactionism shares with structural-
functionalism the concept of a social "position". From
this perspective, however, a position is viewed as a
socially recoqnized category of actors. The concept of
role is also very important in symbolic interactionism.

Stryker (1964) relates position and role in the
following way:

In attaching a position designation to a per-
son, we are led to expect certain behaviors

from him and we behave toward him on the basis
of these expectations. To the expectations with
regard to behavior attached to a position the
term role is given. (p. 137)

A person's behavior is influenced by his or her
self definition, which is developed in interaction with
others, and reflects how they have acted toward the per-
son. It is also shaped by one's reference group of the
moment; "that group, real or imaginary, whose standpoint
is being used as the frame of reference by the actor"
(Shibutani, 1961:257).

The interactionist concept of the family is suc-
cinctly outlined by Hill and Hansen (1960):

The family is a unity of interacting persons,
each occupying a position(s) within the family

to which a number of roles are assigned, i.e.,
the individual perceives norms or role expectations

33
held individually or collectively by other family
members for his attributes and behavior. In a
given situation, an individual defines these role
expectations primarily in view of their source
(reference group) and of his own self-conception.
Then he role—plays. (pp. 302, 303)

Interactionist studies have generally focused on
the family and its members, and neglected the family's
relationships with its social environment, thus studying
it as a "comparatively closed unity" (Hill and Hansen,
1960:303). Nevertheless, the framework contains the con-
cept of adaptation, "family and individual survival or

integration in a given cultural milieu" (Schvaneveldt,

1966:108).

Role Theogy

 

Standing between structural-functionalism and
symbolic interactionism, is a perspective referred to as
role theory. Thomas and Biddle (1966) outline this per-
spective as follows:

Individuals in society occupy positions, and
their role performance in these positions is
determined by social norms, demands, and rules;
by the role performances of others in their
respective positions; by those who observe and
react to the performance; and by the individual's
particular capabilities and personality. (p. 4)

Morgan (1975) states that, as with functional
theory, there are many versions of role theory. He finds
the more systems oriented approach to role theory to be
"clearly congruent with and often part of a wider func-

tional theory" (p. 55). Note also the striking congruence

between Thomas and Biddle's (1966) formulation and Hill

34
and Hansen's (1960) interactionist conceptualization of
the family in the previous subsection. Nye and Gekas
(1976) review the controversy between the structural and
interactionist positions on role and suggest a possible
integration.

Broderick (1971) believes that the family develop-
mental framework "demonstrates once again how well the
units and constructs of the interactional and structural-
functional frameworks can be made to articulate with each
other" (p. 6). Broderick also feels that Parsons, "as
much as any other theorist," has "integrated interaction
theory with structure-functional theory through the simple
expedient of specifying roles as the chief structured
elements of social systems" (Broderick, 1971:4).

Several role variables are relevant to the subject
of working mothers and single parents. Role conflict is
the presence of incompatible expectations for a role. Role
incompatibility is the degree to which the demands of a
set of roles are incompatible with each other. Role clarity
is the degree to which the behaviors associated with a role
are explicitly defined. Role strain is the stress felt by
a person when he or she cannot comply with or has difficulty
complying with role expectations (Burr, 1973).

Role strain has been primarily thought of "as a
dependent variable, indicative of problems in role enact-
ment" (Nye, 1976:23). Nye (1976) believes that role strain

could also be used as a predictor of marital

35
dissatisfaction, marital dissolution and mental illness.
Nye and Gekas (1976) identify eight family roles: provider,
housekeeper, child care, child socialization, sexual,
recreational, therapeutic, and kinship associated with the

husband/father and wife/mother positions.

Conflict Theory

The frameworks discussed so far do not incorporate
interpersonal conflict as an important factor in ongoing
human interaction. Conflict is, however, a ubiquitous fact
of life in society and in the family. Deutsch (1969) de-
fines interpersonal conflict "as existing whenever incom-
patible activities occur . . . between two or more persons"
(Barry, 1970:47). "Conflict, says Deutsch, may arise from
differences in information or belief, from differences in
interests, desires, or values, or from the scarcity of some
resource, or from a rivalry in which one person tries to
outdo or undo the other" (Barry, 1970:47, from Deutsch,
1969). Barry (1970) adds that conflicts arise from percep-
tions of reality, and not strictly from objective circum-
stances, a symbolic interactionist perspective. '

Sprey (1969, 1979) proposes a model of the family
as a system living with conflict within itself and in its
transactions with its environment. He rejects any impli-
cation of other perspectives "that stability, the fact of
family continuity, is somehow normal and incompatible with

the presence of conflict and disorder" (1969:699). Clearly,

36

many families persist for years in the presence of a great
deal of conflict. Virtually all families experience some.
Indeed, family counselors are concerned if there is the
appearance or claim of a total absence of conflict in a
family.

The emphasis is then on the achievement of ongoing
family functioning through the management of conflict.
Sprey (1969) makes cooperation the key concept. He defines
cooperation with Horowitz (1967) as a process by which
problems are settled in a manner permitting the existence
of ongoing differences and disagreements.

Sprey's model links the conflict and systems per-
spectives. He says that the systems approach is a basic
premise of conflict theory, that the systems perspective
is assumed. Working from this perspective Sprey finds that
the "family system places a premium on survival as a group"
(1979:153) and the "Living, open systems depend for their
survival on exchanges with their environment" (1979:143).
Sprey (1979) discusses family system maintenance, a process

to which he finds the family's children contribute.

Systems Perspective

The classic definition of system, stated by von
Bertalanffy in 1956, is "a set of units with relationships
among them" (Stein, 1974:3). Many would elaborate on this
rather spare statement. Brock, Chesebro, Cragan and Klumpp

(1973), for example, state that

37

A system is an assembly of objects all of which

are related to one another by some form of

regular interaction or interdependence so that

the assembly can be viewed as an organic or

organized whole (p. 27),
thus specifying the nature of the relationships among the
units, introducing a dynamic element, and enlarging upon
the concept of the set.

Kantor and Lehr (1975) add further ramifications to

the concept of a system by defining it as:

. . . a set of different things or parts . . .

that meet two requirements: first, these parts

are directly or indirectly related to one

another in a network of reciprocal causal

effects, and second, each component part is

related to one or more of the other parts of

the set in a reasonably stable way during any

particular period of time. (p. 10)
This definition further details the nature of the relation-
ships among units, introducing the concepts of indirectness,
network , and stability .

A system may be characterized in a number of ways.

It may be said to have a given number of components or to
be of a certain size or extent. It may be described in
terms of its structure or organization. The network of
relationships among components may be more or less complex.
The components may be specialized, and may be differentiated
in terms of access to energy or resources and power or con—
trol. They may also be of differential primacy in their
functioning. The pattern of communication among components

of information processing systems may be more or less com-

plex (Anderson and Carter, 1974).

38

The definition or specification of a system also
defines its boundary, that which separates or distinguishes
it and its parts from its environment (Speer, 1970). Systems
may be characterized as to the location and nature of their
boundaries (Anderson and Carter, 1974). An "open" system is
a system which interacts with its environment, exchanging
energy or information (Kantor and Lehr, 1975). Buckley
(1967) requires that a system's interchange with its environ-
ment be an essential factor underlying its viability and
continuity if it is to be considered an open system. Open
systems may be said to have permeable boundaries (Brock,
Chesebro, Cragan and Klumpp, 1973). Such systems may be
thought of as having linkage with other systems in their
environment.

Systems may be overlapping or interrelated, and they
may be components of other systems. Thus, there are "sub-
systems" and "suprasystems" (Anderson and Carter, 1974). To
the degree that a system is Open, it is subject to environ-
mental influences.

Systems may be adaptive, that is, "capable of making
changes, and of responding productively to stress whether
it is internally or externally stimulated" (Kantor and Lehr,
1975:11). An information processing system may, for example,
receive information which stimulates it to make an adaptive
response. Kantor and Lehr (1975) maintain that "Systems

theory asserts that complexly organized, open, and adaptive

39
information processing systems are purposive and goal
seeking" (p. 11).

A system may be characterized, largely in terms of
its components, as abstract, physical, organic or social.

A set of interrelated mathematical functions or a model of
a human personality would be an abstract system. Machines
are physical systems. A living creature may be considered
an organic system. A human being is an organic system.

It is also a complexly organized, open, adaptive informa-
tion processing system. Social systems are "composed of
persons or groups of persons who interact and influence the
behavior of each other." (Anderson and Carter, 1974:8).
Groups, organizations, communities and societies are
examples of social systems.

A family is a social system. It is a recognizable
entity made up of several regularly interacting and inter-
dependent people related to one another by a framework of
positions and corresponding role sets (Anderson and Carter,
1974), and sharing a common family culture: norms, rules,
expectations, rituals, etc. (Wertheim, 1975). Families
may be characterized in terms of their power, authority and
influence structures and their patterns of communication.
The nuclear family and the single parent family and their
members are subsystems in extended families, the community
and society. The family and/or its members may also belong

to such overlapping social systems as school classes, work

40
groups, voluntary organizations and formal and informal
social groups.

The family is an open system, as it and its compo-
nents are in important and ongoing interaction with its
physical and social environment. The family is an informa-
tion processing system, utilizing information from its
environment. It is dependent on its environment. Families
are adaptive systems, endeavoring to respond apprOpriately
to protect and further their interests. They and their com-
ponent individuals are "responsive, purposeful systems"
(Wertheim, 1975) . ‘

At any given time a system is in a state defined by
all of its characteristics at that time. In actual practice,
the state of a system is specified by a "state vector," con-
sisting of the values of a number of system parameters at
the given time (Bellman and Smith, 1973). The set of para-
meters selected is a function of the interests of the
observer. The state of a system may be different at dif-
ferent times. It may change in response to the aging or
growth or development of its components, or in response to
external influences. It may develop, grow or evolve.

An adaptive system which is Open to a changing en-
vironment, and/or which contains components whose states
may change with time, is said to be "stable", or in a
“steady state" if it is "maintaining a viable relationship
'with its environment and its components, and its functions

(are being performed in such fashion as to ensure its

41
continued existence" (Anderson and Carter, 1974:18). It
may maintain its stability through ”self-corrective" pro-
cesses. It may adapt to changes through change-promoting
"self-directive" processes (Wertheim, 1975). "Steady
state is characteristic of the family system" (Anderson
and Carter, 1974:112), which needs to "endure as a system
but to undergo successive transformations in response to
changes in its micro- and/or macro— environment." The same
may be said of human beings (Wertheim, 1975:286). Self
preservation as an identifiable entity, through maintenance
of a steady state, is one of the most important goals of a
purposeful system.

"Process" is "the actions and interactions of the
various component parts of a system both within and across
its environmental borders" (Kantor and Lehr, 1975:10). "A
process" is generally referred to in terms of the function
performed by or consequences of the particular set of acti-
vities it comprises. A process may or may not result in
significant or enduring change in the system's state. It

also may or may not affect the stability of the system.

Sypthesis

 

The eclectic approach to sociological frames of
reference comes well recommended. According to Broderick
(1971), "Parsons set an important example for other theo-
rists in not feeling the need to work exclusively within any

one of the traditional conceptual frameworks" (p. 4).

42

Broderick (1971) suggests what he calls the strategy of
multiple perspectives. This strategy:

. . . takes advantage of the existence of es-

tablished conceptual frameworks, but instead

of attempting to integrate them systematically

and across the board, it attempts only to

integrate them around more narrowly defined

particular social processes such as courtship

or marital decision making. (p. 17)

The frames of reference briefly described above are
often referred to as being in competition (see e.g., Hill
and Hansen, 1960:309). In a sense they are, focusing on
different aspects of human interaction and organization,
and sometimes contradicting each other on specifics. A
more promising perspective, however, looks to the overlaps
among the frameworks, which are not inconsiderable, and to
their congruencies, in a spirit of synthesis and development.

Ritzer (1975), for example, takes this approach.

Stryker (1959) gives a substantive example of this

approach:

One final remark: symbolic interaction is
not a general theory of human behavior. That
is, it does not incorporate all the variables
presumably important in accounting for human
behavior, but rather selects from these a few
for concentrated attention. Thus it would not
do to deny the contributions of alternative
theoretical views from which human behavior
can be approached. It is contended, however,
that alternative views can be enriched by taking
into account the set of ideas which have been
developed. (p. 119)

The following argument seeks to develop a frame of
reference for the study of family maintenance by indicating
how each of the perspectives discussed above contributes to

the synthesis. Although the present concerns are most closely

43
related to those of structural-functionalism, it will be
seen that each perspective serves to enrich the whole.
Structural-functionalism defines the entities and makes of
system maintenance a basic if not focal process. Symbolic
interactionism addresses the interaction process, by which
the family system is actually maintained, and explains why
maintenance efforts may be ineffective or dysfunctional.
Role theory focuses on a key concept of structural-
functionalism and symbolic interactionism, and provides
the formal framework for interaction. Conflict theory
addresses the individualistic efforts of family members
in their own behalf, providing additional detail at the
interaction level, and additional explanation for mainten-
ance inefficiencies. Finally, systems theory provides a
detailed extension of structural-functionalism in the area
of system maintenance, which provides the necessary frame-

work for the development of a family maintenance theory.

B. Research and Theory

The preceding section has outlined the core concepts
of several key theoretical frameworks of sociology and at-
tempted to indicate how they might be integrated to apply to
the issues at hand. This section discusses the theory and
research bearing on the subject matter of this study. In
contrast to the state of family theory, family research
comprises a huge and rapidly growing literature (Hill and

Hansen, 1960; Burr, Hill, Nye and Reiss, 1979). Even so,

44
single parent research has lagged, as has the organization
of findings and the derivation of theory from them.

The relevant literature may be broken down into
that addressing issues of nuclear family maintenance, the
use of time, the working wife and mother, the single parent
family, and satisfaction. Each of these areas is taken up

in turn.

Nuclear Family Maintenance

The fact of the division of labor within the family
by sex is supported by many studies (Hesselbart, 1976). We
have distinguished five general family maintenance tasks,
the external tasks of income acquisition and the purchasing
of goods, and the internal tasks of physical maintenance,
meal preparation and cleanup, and child care (see Chapter II,
Section A). The acquisition of income is the key task of
the provider role, the child care task is the function of the
child care role, and the remaining tasks are generally
assigned to the housekeeper role. The husband/father posi-
tion traditionally has a provider role. The housekeeper and
child care roles are traditionally attached to the wife/
mother position (Nye and Gekas, 1976).

The division of labor by sex has been the case in the
United States, as elsewhere. The sex-typing of family main-
tenance roles is even supported by law (Slocum and Nye,
1976). The American family as a whole has a more flexible

role structure than most, with the majority of married

45
mothers in the labor force and husbands often contributing
to the housekeeping and child care tasks. The wife's income
is, however, usually far less than her husband's, and is
regarded as supplemental. The husband's housekeeping and
child care efforts are regarded as "help." Finally, the
responsibility for family maintenance task performance is
still sex-typed even when the performance itself is not
(Zelditch, 1955; Slocum and Nye, 1976). The relationship
between sex-role attitudes and the family division of labor
is, in fact, complex (see Hesselbart, 1976; Bowling, 1977).

There is much, however, that mothers do in their
traditional roles that is, in fact, instrumental. Women do
much of the interacting with the family's social environment
to obtain the needed goods and services, and perform much
instrumental work in the home. In recent years, recognition
has also been given to important expressive functions per-
formed by the husband/father. (Pitts, 1964; Slocum and Nye,
1976)

The contributions of children to family maintenance
are sometimes ignored. Children do in fact contribute to,
as well as derive support from, the family (Cogswell and
Sussman, 1972). This contribution, of course, varies with
age. Walker and Gauger (1973) found in a study of 1,378
upstate New York families that children 12 to 17 years of
age averaged 1 hour per day per child, and children 6 to 11
half of that.

46

The question of the isolation of the nuclear family
has been mentioned above, in Chapter II, Section A. Despite
the arguments of the Parsonian functionalists, kin have been
found to be an important source of aid to nuclear and single
parent families. Adams (1968) reports that research by
Sussman, Sharp and Axelrod, and himself demonstrates the
existence of considerable aid, mostly from parents to adult
children, mostly in the form of money and child care, and
some shOpping companionship as well. Adams (1968) found
less, but still significant, aid from adult children to
parents.

Walker and Gauger (1973) report finding babysitters,
grandparents, neighbors and others providing family main-
tenance help. Litwak (1960) and Litwak and Szelenyi (1969)
present evidence for assistance from relatives, friends and
neighbors in the United States and Hungary. Litwak and
Szelenyi (1969) also indicate the primacy of kin as a source
of aid if they are geographically close.

Lee (1979) discusses the isolated nuclear family
issue and extensively reviews the kinship aid research. He
concludes that there is substantial assistance among kin
within a framework in which the nuclear family "is largely
responsible for its own economic fortunes" (p. 50). He
also suggests that service assistance from kin increases,
and service assistance from neighbors decreases, with the

proximity of kin.

47

The family may, of course, have recourse to assis-
tance from businesses or agencies. Depending upon the
family's financial resources, household help may be hired,
child care paid for, meals eaten out, and a variety of other
'services purchased. The use of hired help has decreased
greatly in this century, while eating out has greatly gained
in favor (Bose, 1978). Those able to demonstrate need also
have access to free school lunches, free child care and

other services at reduced or no cost.

The Use of Time

 

There are a considerable number of studies concerning
the use of time by Americans (e.g., Robinson, 1977a) and in
twelve countries (Szalai, 1972). There is also a sizable
research literature concerning the temporal aspects of house-
hold work (e.g., walker, 1969, 1970; Walker and Gauger, 1973;
Vanek, 1974). While the figures vary, certain general find-
ings appear time and again.

The hours expended by wives in housework are equiva-
lent to their husband's fulltime jobs. A study of 2214
American families by Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt (1966)
found that wives averaged 40 hours a week of regular house-
work in 1964. Regular housework was defined as "meal prepa-
ration, regular cleaning, child care, straightening up, and
other time spent working around the house" (Morgan, Sira-
geldin and Baerwaldt, 1966:102, 526). Walker (1969, 1970)

reports that 1296 married Syracuse, New York, homemakers

48
averaged 7.3 hours a day of household work, 7 days a week,
in 1967-1968. These hours varied directly with number of
children and inversely with age of youngest child. House-
hold work was defined as "the many activities performed to
produce goods and services used by the family" (Walker, 1970:
8). These activities comprised food preparation and cleanup,
house care, clothing care, family care, marketing, manage-
ment and record keeping. Walker (1970) specifically excluded
work to provide money to buy goods and services.

Robinson (l977a) reports the finding of the Study of
Americans' Use of Time that urban American housewives
averaged 53.2 hours of housework per week in 1965 and 1966.
Housework included cooking, laundry, housecleaning, shopping,
repairs, care of pets or plants, child care, and all related
travel. Oakley (1974), in a study of forty London house-
wives, found that they averaged 77 hours a week "in house-
work, including shopping, and in child care or supervision"
in 1971 (p. 92). Child supervision is a problematical
variable, as it is often carried out as a secondary activity
together with something else, and it is something that one
can be said to be doing whenever one is in the company of
one's dependent children, which for a non-employed mother
may be most of the time.

The Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt (1966) study
found that male family heads working for money averaged about
47 hours a week at this activity. Husbands also contributed

an average of 4 hours a week to regular housework. The Study

49

of Americans' Use of Time found that employed men averaged
44.8 hours a week on their jobs and 11.3 hours a week on
housework (Robinson, 1977a). Walker (1970) reports that
husbands spent an average of 1.6 hours a day doing house-
hold work. walker and Gauger (1973) found that husbands
contributed an average of 1.5 hours a day to household work.
This contribution varied inversely with his employment
hours. Walker and Gauger's (1973) work was an extension of
walker's (1969, 1970), utilizing a slightly augmented 1967-
68 sample plus 60 rural upstate New York families surveyed
in 1971.

Taking husbands and wives together, Morgan, Sira-
geldin and Baerwaldt (1966) report that they averaged 43
hours of regular housework a week. In families with children
under 18 at home they averaged 48 hours of regular housework
a week. If the youngest child was under 4 they averaged 55
hours a week, and if there were also 4 or more people in
their family their total household work averaged 58 hours
a week. In addition to regular housework, Morgan, Sirageldin
and Baerwaldt (1966) found that married couples spent an
average of 5 hours a week on home production in 1964. Home
production included such activities as painting, redecorating,
repairing, major housecleaning, sewing, mending, gardening,
canning and freezing.

The contributions of individual children to housework
tend to be less than that of either parent, but may be

substantial in the aggregate. The findings of walker and

50
Gauger (1973) were reported above. The contributions of
others to family maintenance is not so well detailed as
that of husbands and wives. Morgan, Sirageldin and Baer-
waldt (1966) found that family members other than husbands
and wives, meaning children and others, contributed an
average of 7 hours a week to regular housework. They also
found that outside help of all kinds, free and paid for,

averaged about 5 hours a week.

Working Wives

 

The situation changes when the wife goes to work.
American norms have become somewhat more accepting of this,
now common, practice (Hesselbart, 1976; Iglehart, 1979).
Employed women averaged 38.8 hours a week at work in Robin-
son's (1977a) study. Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt
(1966) found that working wives averaged 27 hours a week at
work, after eliminating the 9% who worked less than 121
hours in the year. Women with preschool children in the
family averaged 20 hours a week.

In general, the data show that the family's adjust-
ment of its housework to a wife's employment is primarily
for the wife to reduce the hours she spends at housework
(Walker and Gauger, 1973; Vanek, 1974). Robinson (l977a)
reports that employed women spent an average of 28.1 hours
a week doing housework, compared to the 53.2 hours spent
by housewives. Bose (1978) reports that working women

average 3 to 4 hours a day less housework than housewives,

51
but may spend more time at employment and housework taken
together. Walker and Gauger (1973) found that "On the
average, wives used 2 hours less time per day in household
activities if employed than if not employed" (p. 9). Walker
(1970) reports that wives employed 15 or more hours a week
nevertheless averaged 70 hours a week at paid employment,
household work plus volunteer work, compared to 61 hours for
wives employed 0 to 14 hours a week.

Husbands of employed women have usually, but not
always, been found to contribute somewhat more to household
work than husbands of housewives. 'Berk and Berk (1979), how-
.ever, find it "still probably fair to say the employed wives
hold down two fulltime jobs: one in the market and one in
the household" (p. 231). Walker (1969, 1970), Walker and
Gauger (1973) and Vanek (1974) found that, while the wife's
time at household work of all kinds goes down with increas-
ing hours of paid employment, her husband's contribution
remains essentially unchanged. Walker (1970) also found that
husbands of wives who were employed 15 or more hours a week
averaged 63 hours a week at paid employment, household work
and volunteer work, compared to 65 hours for husbands of
wives employed 0 to 14 hours a week.

Blood and WOlfe (1960) and Blood (1963), however,
report evidence that husbands tend to contribute more to
household task performance if their wives work, the contri-
bution varying inversely with their own work time. Hood

(1977) reports a "one-hour, eighteen-minute per week

52
increase [in child care] for fathers of pre-school children,
and a three hour increase for fathers of school-aged
children when wives work" (p. l) in a 1971 national proba-
bility sample. Robinson (l977a) found that husbands of
employed women recorded 10% more time spent at housework
than husbands of housewives. This additional contribution
made up only a small part of the housework time sacrificed
by the working wife, however. Taking working wives and
their husbands together, the more hours they spend working
for money the fewer hours they spend doing regular house-
work (Morgan, 1966).

Layne and Lowe (1977) report finding that child care
and household task performance by husbands and other house-
hold members are much more likely in families with a working
wife than in those with a housewife. Walker and Gauger
(1973) report that the contribution of children 12 to 17
years old to household work varied very little with mother's
employment. No change is discernable in their data regard-
ing the contributions of children 6 to 11 years old. Douvan
(1963), however, found that the proportion of adolescent
girls having major household responsibilities and working
parttime varies directly with the degree of maternal employb
ment. Roy (1963) found that high school children of working
mothers do slightly more housework than children of not-
employed mothers, girls more than boys. 'Boys worked for pay
slightly less, and girls significantly more, if their mother

worked. Rallings and Nye (1979) review the literature and

53
propose that higher levels of employment of a wife/mother
are directly productive of lower amounts of household labor
performed by her, greater enactment of traditionally femi-
nine roles by her husband, and a greater number of household
tasks performed by her child(ren).

Exploring in detail the help received from others
outside the immediate family, Morgan, Sirageldin and Baer-
waldt (1966) found that the most such help was received by
families with wives under 35 working more than half time who
have children under 6 to care for. This help amounted to an
average of 19 hours a week. If there were children under 18
but not under 6, an average of only 5 hours of help a week
was received. Help received by families varied directly
with the hours the wife spent working for money. Vanek
(1974) found that employed and non-employed women did not
differ in their use of paid help. Fogarty, Rapoport and
Rapoport (1971), however, found that a variety of domestic
help arrangements were used by dual-career families in Great
Britain to cope with the demands on their time.

Rapoport and Rapoport (1971) suggest that the family
with a working wife must either redistribute the maintenance
task load, neglect some of it, or else suffer overload.
Robinson (l977a) summarizes the typical effects of employ-
ment on a woman's time:

While an employed woman may have reduced both
housework and child-care time by 50 percent when
taking on an outside job, these savings in time

came nowhere close to the 30 or 40 hours she had
to devote to that job. The overall result . . .

54

was that employed women had over 10 hours less

free time per week to enjoy than women not in

the paid labor force. (p. 148)
Employment was the major cause of reduced free time found
by Robinson (l977a), far exceeding all other factors, in-
cluding marriage, the arrival of children, additional
children, and preschool children (see also Rice, 1979).

To the extent that a working wife works longer hours
to meet the demands of her family roles she takes away from
her free time, family life and/or social life (Robinson,
1977a). Nye (1963) reports that "Both observers and employed
women themselves have indicated that the combined duties of
housewife and employee were burdensome and produced some
feelings of anxiety, frustration and fatigue" (p. 323).

The task/role situation of a working wife as described above
has the potential for role conflict, role incompatibility,
and a lack of role clarity. The role of wife/mother as a
provider is developing, and is not entirely clear or con-
sensual. It is thus susceptible to role conflict. Incom-
patibility between the provider and the housekeeper and
child care roles is a major problem for many working mothers
(Lobodzinska, 1977). There is the reality of being commit-
ted to a great many normatively prescribed task hours,
perhaps with little freedom to change the situation. This
would be the case, for example, if the wife's income was
necessary rather than discretionary. Burr (1973) and Rice
(1979) predict that the wife/mother will experience role

strain in this situation.

55

Single Parents

Families headed by never-married mothers are social
systems without a husband/father, but with the same main-
tenance roles and tasks as nuclear families. Separation,
divorce, and the death of a spouse also produce one-parent
families, necessitating the redistribution of family main-
tenance task performance. If one conceptualizes the family
as an isolated system, all of the maintenance tasks of
which are performed by its adult members, then one might
reasonably question the ability of a single parent to main-
tain a family. Zelditch (1955) finds two parents to be a
necessity (see Chapter II, Section A). Glasser and Navarre
(1965) doubt the long-term viability of the isolated single-
parent family. The same logic can, however, be used to
question the viability of the isolated nuclear family. Lit-
wak and Szelenyi (1969:469) discuss the "lack of human re-
sources" of the nuclear family, which "has only two adult‘
members", and its consequent inadequacies and problems.

Litwak and Szelenyi (1969), however, go on to dis-
cuss the contributions made to family task performance by
others outside the family. In fact, it is hard to imagine
any social system surviving entirely on its own efforts.
Fortunately, this is unnecessary. Virtually all social sys-
tems are multiply connected in a complex web of dependen-
cies. Families are Open systems deriving support from kin,
friends and neighbors, businesses and agencies. The question

then, is not whether a given family form is viable or not on

56
its own, but rather, how family maintenance task performr
ance may be distributed among actors within and outside of
the family.

The absence or near-absence of any contribution to
family maintenance by a husband necessitates most impor-
tantly that someone else, almost always the mother, take up
the role of primary provider. She may, through choice or
an inability to arrange a job, not be employed, living on
support payments, welfare and/or other forms of assistance.
The income obtained in this way is very likely to be quite
low and the lifestyle is not generally a very pleasant one
(see e.g., Weiss, 1979). Although the family maintenance
task load is reduced somewhat by the absence of a husband,
there are fewer family members and in particular, only one
parent to cope with it. On balance, the non-employed female
single parent is likely to spend somewhat more time doing
household work than the housewife (see above and Weiss,
1979).

Most often, however, the female single parent is
employed, at least parttime, although she is likely to be
low paid and may still be dependent in part on financial
assistance (see Chapter I, Section B). She has a more
demanding family maintenance situation than the working
wife, but she has less in the way of resources with which
to cape. Being responsible for what amounts to two full-
time jobs (Weiss, 1979), she is likely to work long and hard

to keep up with all the family maintenance tasks.

57

As with the working wife, if the single parent is
not to be overloaded, she must either reduce her family
maintenance efforts or obtain additional assistance (Weiss,
1979; Glasser and Navarre, 1965; Blood, 1972). The single
parent may attempt to reduce her maintenance task load by
sacrificing task performance in one area or another. Chil-
dren may be left alone more, or meal preparation may be
simplified. Standards for housekeeping and/or meals may be
reduced. Some time may be saved by more efficient manage-
ment of time (Weiss, 1979).

The single parent may also attempt to hand off to
others part of her maintenance task load. Children typically
take up some of the load (Weiss, 1979; Blood, 1972). A
former mate does not simply disappear upon separation or
divorce. (S)he remains one of the two parents of any chil-
dren of the marriage and often sees them regularly. Ex-
husbands may provide some money for child suppbrt, and may
be available to perform major repairs, emergency child care
and other supportive services (Hetherington, Cox and Cox,
1976; Goetting, 1978).

Relatives may be helpful. Adams (1968) reports help
received from.grown children by a widowed or divorced parent.
Lopata (1978) reports some extended family support to a
sample of 1169 Chicago area widows, none of which was signi-
ficant except that from grown children.3 Weiss (1979) found
evidence that single parents in general receive some help

from relatives, especially if they live nearby, as well as

 

 

58
from friends and neighbors. He also found that single
parent organizations may serve as sources of information
and emotional support.

Financial resources may permit the buying of time--
eating out, using a professional cleaner more often, or
paying for child care, for example. Campbell, Converse and
Rodgers (1976), however, report that only 4% of their 1971
national probability subsample of 128 divorced and sepa-
rated women hired a person outside their family to help
with housework, despite the fact that 71% of them worked
outside the home and 84% had children. Community agencies
(provide child care and other services as well as financial
aid to qualifying parents.

The overload a single parent is likely to exper-
ience despite her efforts to cope, coupled with her often
low income, tends to isolate her from adult companionship
and a social life, a situation typically productive of
loneliness, anxiety and despair (see e.g., Ferri and Robin-
son, 1976; Weiss, 1979). The ability of the single parent
to give up roles and change the situation is even less than
that of the working wife. Burr's (1973) analysis implies
that she is therefore likely to experience greater role
strain than the working wife. Incompatibility between her
roles, their ambiguity and potential for role conflict may
also contribute to role strain. Campbell, Converse and

Rodgers (1976) found that divorced and separated women

59
reported far more stress than any other subgroup of American

women .

Satisfaction

It seems likely from the discussion so far that a
mother's life satisfaction would be related to family main-
tenance task performance. The sort of lifestyles reported
in the studies of single parents and working wives imply the
likelihood of a reduced level of general satisfaction and
happiness, and reduced satisfaction with a number of specifr:
aspects of life as well. This may come about through over-
work, a reduced quality of life, and/or through protracted
and/or severe role strain.

Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) constructed
an Index of Well-Being composed of one overall life satis-
faction item and an Index of General Affect made up of 8
semantic differential scales. They report that the lowest
levels on the Index of Well-Being were attained by the
unemployed, those separated or divorced, and those who never
married. The general sense of well-being also varies
directly with income and inversely with population of place
of residence, being well below the mean for those with low
incomes (below $7000 a year in 1970) and those living in
cities of over 100,000. The female single parent is at
risk of being in more than one of these categories.

Nye (1963), Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976)

and Burt, Wiley, Minor and Murray (1978) discuss specific,

60
or domain, satisfactions as well. Nye (1963) devised 7
questionnaire items to determine a mother's satisfaction
”in the principal relationships in which [she] is a parti-
cipant” (p. 321): family income, house and furniture,
recreation, children, husband, community and daily work.
In a study of 1991 married mothers in 3 Washington towns,
he found that those employed fulltime were more satisfied
with their work than were those employed parttime. They
were also more satisfied with their work than the non-
employed mothers were with their housework.

Nye (1963) constructed a general life satisfaction
index by counting the number of specific satisfaction items
answered "generally" or "entirely satisfied", and found that
employment, especially parttime, was productive of a higher
general satisfaction with life. Robinson (l977a) also found
that employment is a more satisfying activity than house-
work. He found, however, that employed married mothers felt
somewhat more rushed and less satisfied with their free time
and life in general than married mothers who were not em-
ployed.

Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) investigated
satisfaction with regard to 18 domains of life experience
chosen in a "somewhat arbitrary" (p. 62) fashion to broadly
cover the lives of their respondents. Their domains com-
prised marriage, family life, health, neighborhood, friend-
ships, housework, job, life in the United States, city or

county, nonwork, housing, usefulness of education, standard

61
of living, amount of education, savings, religion, organi-
zations, and the national government. They found that
divorced and separated women were less satisfied than women
in general with regard to a number of domains, in particular
their family life, standard of living and savings. This is
in marked contrast to the responses of widows, who, despite
their rather low general sense of well-being, were well
satisfied in regard to the specific domains in their lives,
excepting only health. They were particularly well satis-
fied with their standard of living, savings and housing.
Very few of the widowed respondents were responsible for
young children. .

Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) also compared
the domain satisfactions of housewives, employed wives and
employed single (i.e., separated, divorced, widowed and
never married) women. A large majority of the wives and
about half of the employed single women had children. The
only significant differences found were that the employed
single women were less satisfied with their family life and
standard of living than either married group.

As an alternative to their Index of Well-Being, Camp-
bell, Converse and Rodgers (1976) constructed a satisfaction
index by summing their domain satisfactions. They conclude
that "global reports of a sense of well-being can be meaning-
fully seen as a composite of feelings of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction with a variety of more specific domains of

life" (p. 95).

62

Burt, Wiley, Minor and Murray (1978) investigated
the underlying structure of well-being, utilizing 12
measures of perceived quality of life and pooled data from
12 independent national probability samples. Their measures
comprised one of positive and one of negative affect, over-
all life satisfaction and overall happiness, plus 8 domain
satisfaction measures "spanning the range of basic life
activities" (p. 376): housing, neighborhood, finances, work,
leisure, local store, local health center, and police ser-
vice. They conclude that the "structure most likely to be
latent in patterns of individuals' manifest satisfaction
with their consumption of goods in the United States" is
"four-dimensional . . . consisting of positive affect, nega-
tive affect, satisfaction with domains, and general satis-
faction" (p. 393). Positive and negative affect each
influence the corresponding measure. General satisfaction
underlies the measures of overall life satisfaction and
happiness. All four dimensions influence the domain satis-

faction measures.

C. A Theopy of Family Maintenance

 

The family is a social system which is a component
of a larger social system, the national society. As such,
it interacts with the national society as a whole and other
of its components. The family is made up of members who
may occupy the positions of mother, father and child, de-

pending upon the family type. Family members are also

63
members of the national society, and, in general, of other
units of that society.

The most basic function of the family is to maintain
its continuing survival and that of its members. Family
maintenance requires the acquisition of necessary goods and
services. Convertible resources are generally acquired
first and traded for these goods and services. Certain of
the goods require preparation before consumption. The pro-
perty and belongings of the family must be maintained.
Finally, its dependent members must be cared for.

Members of the family seek to accomplish these
tasks. Maintenance task activity goes on within a structure
of roles which relate the positions of family members and
define to a degree the reciprocal behaviors expected of
them. In particular, the parent or parents are considered
responsible for family maintenance. A person occupying a
father position is expected to perform a provider role,
acquiring resources for the family. A mother is expected
to perform a housekeeper and child care role, doing shop-
ping, maintaining the home and belongings, preparing meals,
and caring for the child(ren). This is true no matter what
other activities, including family maintenance activities,
the parent may be involved in. Single parents are con-
sidered responsible for all aspects of family maintenance.
The parents may help each other in the accomplishment of
these maintenance tasks. They may also be assisted by

their children, and by kin, friends, and neighbors. They

64
may obtain assistance from businesses and community agencies
as well.

Each individual performing family maintenance tasks
does so within the context of his or her own personal needs
and interests, which may, from time to time, be in conflict
with those of others or the family as a whole. Furthermore,
each individual acts in accordance with his or her own
definition of self and situation, which in turn are based
upon an imperfect and mediated perception of reality.

The female single parent is responsible for all 3
family maintenance roles. She spends more time at family
maintenance than the married mother, and so she has less
free time. She receives more help from her children, kin,
friends, neighbors, businesses and agencies than the married
mother. Lacking most or all of a husband's contribution,
however, her family averages fewer total maintenance hours
than a married mother's.

If the female single parent is not employed she
spends all but a small part of her family maintenance time
doing abmost all of the household work of a married mother
plus some of what a husband would have done. The rest of
her family maintenance time is spent in activities relating
to beginning or continuing to receive an income from some
source other than employment. The primary deficit in family
maintenance relative to a nuclear family is in the area of

income production, resulting in a very low income.

65

The employed female single parent spends more time
acquiring an income, less time doing household work, and
more time at family maintenance overall than the non-
employed female single parent. The size of the latter dif-
ferences is proportional to the former difference. She
also receives more help than the non-employed female single
parent, also in pr0portion to her hours of employment, and
so her family averages more total maintenance hours. Due
to difficulties relating to the performance of all 3 family
maintenance roles in addition to the sex differentials in
pay and opportunity in the marketplace, the employed female
single parent does.not average as many employment hours as
a husband, and earns a much lower income. The primary
family maintenance deficit in this kind of family, however,
is in the area of household work.

The working wife performs 3 family maintenance roles
to the housewife's 2. She spends less time at household
work but more time at family maintenance overall, and so she
too has less free time. She receives more help from her
children, husband, kin, friends, neighbors, businesses and
agencies than the housewife, and so her family averages more
total maintenance hours than a housewife's. All of these
differences are proportional to her hours of employment.-

Having the most employment hours of all the family
forms considered here, the two-income family has the highest
average income as well. Since the husband's contribution to

family maintenance is largely in the form of employment

66
hours, however, the two-income family still makes do with
fewer hours of household work than the nuclear family in
which the wife is not employed.

To the extent that a mother spends more time at
normatively prescribed family maintenance tasks she will
experience role strain. To the extent that she performs
more roles the possibility of role incompatibility, which
is also productive of role strain, increases. If she is
performing roles which lack role clarity there is the chance
of role conflict, which again is productive of role strain.
Her continuing experience of role strain is related to the
degree to which she is not free to leave her roles. This
felt stress, in proportion to its severity and duration,
exerts a negative effect on the mother's life satisfaction
and happiness.

,Greater times spent in family maintenance means less
free time, and a diminished family life and social life as
well. With less free time there is more of a sense of being
rushed or burdened. Fatigue, anxiety and despair are likely
further consequences. Less family and/or social life is
likely to result in a feeling of loneliness and depression.
These conditions imply a reduced level of satisfaction with
free time, family life and social life, as well as happiness
and life in general.

The standard of living or quality of life ofeafamily
is directly affected by the amount of effort expended toward

its maintenance. The more time spent earning money the

67
higher the family income is likely to be, on the average,
enabling the purchase of more free time and opening up more
options for the enjoyment of that time. The more time
expended in household work, the better the family's meals
are likely to be and/or the better kept the home and pos-
sessions. A higher quality of life will generally produce
a higher perceived quality of life, and so a higher life
satisfaction for family members. The higher the income,
the more satisfied family members are likely to be with
their financial situation. The better the family's meals
and the condition of their home, the more satisfied they.
are likely to be with these aspects of their lives.

The female single parent, working more hours to
maintain her family, but accumulating fewer total family
maintenance hours overall, would thus be expected to be less
satisfied with the specific domains of her life discussed
above, and so less satisfied with her life and less happy
than a married mother. If she was not employed she would be
particularly dissatisfied with her financial situation. If
she was employed, she would be particularly dissatisfied
with her free time, family and social life, meals and home.
The working wife, working more hours to maintain her family
and accumulating more total family maintenance hours overall
but fewer hours of household work, is likely to be less
satisfied with her free time, social life and family life,
meals and home than a housewife, but more satisfied with her

family's financial situation. Her general satisfaction

68
would be negatively affected by the consequences of her
greater family maintenance hours but positively affected
by the consequences of her family's greater total number
of maintenance hours.

It is clear from the above that family system main-
tenance is a multi-faceted process influenced by many
variables and productive of a variety of consequences.

Given the present state of knowledge and the resources of
this study, it is desired to focus on only a few basic
relationships. Thus, only the use of time in family main-
tenance is considered. The two key family maintenance task
performance variables are the time spent by the mother and
the total time spent by all actors in family maintenance.

Two key causal variables are considered: family type
and mother's employment status. Family type is more or less
equivalent to mother's marital status and the number of
parents in the family. One outcome variable is considered,
the mother's life satisfaction. Of course, as we have shown,
there are numerous other variables at each level and numer-

ous intervening variables as well.

D. Hypotheses
The preceding discussion suggests the following
hypotheses:
H.l Nuclear and mother-child families derive
support from others outside the family.
H.2 (Ex-)husbands of separated and divorced

mothers work fewer family maintenance task

69
hours for them than husbands in nuclear
families, but more than zero hours.
Female single parents work more family main-
tenance task hours than married mothers living
with their husbands.
Children of female single parents work more
family maintenance task hours than children in
nuclear families.
Kin of female single parents work more family
maintenance task hours for them than kin of
married mothers living with their husbands.
Friends and neighbors of female single parents
work more family maintenance task hours for
them than friends and neighbors of married
mothers living with their husbands.
Fewer total family maintenance task hours are

worked for families of female single parents

'than nuclear families.

Female single parents have more recourse to
businesses and community services than married

mothers living with their husbands.

Within the married and single parent populations:

H.9

Employed mothers work more family maintenance

task hours than non-employed mothers.

H.10 More total family maintenance task hours are

worked by and for families of employed mothers

than families of non-employed mothers.

70

Regarding satisfaction:

H.11 The life satisfaction of a mother varies
inversely with her family maintenance task
hours.

H.12 The life satisfaction of a mother varies
directly with her family's total maintenance

task hours.

E. Variables

 

The variables which must be measured to test these

hypotheses are:

A.

Demographic Variables:

l.

2.

The mother's marital status, which also indicates
the family type and number of parents in the family.

The mother's employment status.

Task Performance Variables:

1.

The number of family maintenance task hours worked
by the mother during some time period.

The number of family maintenance task hours worked
by her husband or ex-husband, children at home, kin,
friends, and neighbors for her family during the
same time period.

The total family maintenance task hours worked by
her and all other members of her immediate family
during the same time period.

The total family maintenance task hours worked for

her family during the same period.

 

71
S. Recourse to businesses and community services.
C. Outcome Variables:

1. Mother's life satisfaction.

 

 

CHAPTER I I I

THE SURVEY =

This chapter is concerned with the research con-
ducted to obtain the empirical data for this study. It
begins with a discussion of the methodology. A description
of the research instruments and materials follows. The
measures of the variables are defined next. The chapter

ends with a discussion of the research procedures.

A. Methodology

 

This study is based upon original empirical re-
search. The data were collected by means of a cross-
sectional sample survey. The sample is a disproportionate
stratified sample, so as to obtain approximately equal
numbers of married and single mothers for the purpose of
statistical comparison.

The sampling procedure was a two-staged design.
The initial screening sample was obtained by the process
of random digit dialing. Telephone screening then pro-
duced the survey interview sample. The survey data were

then obtained by face-to-face interview.

72

73

Population

 

The survey universe or hypothetical population that
it was desired to represent was urban women heads of house-
hold, with or without a husband, with one or more children
less than 18 years old.

The population from which the study sample was
drawn was the population of City of Lansing, Michigan,
women who were female heads of household (alone or with a
husband) with one or more children less than 18 years old
between March 24 and April 15, 1979. Persons living in
the area called Waverly, extending Northwest from the city
limits, were also included, as this area is, in fact, an
integral part of Lansing. Excluded from the study were
persons residing in East Lansing, an adjoining city con-
taining a major university and the homes of many of its
faculty, staff and students. Also excluded were other
smaller and more distant suburbs, and the surrounding rural
area.

This population was operationally defined by the
13 telephone exchanges containing City of Lansing and
waverly residential lines. As a result, a very small per-
centage of non-city but nearby residents were included.

No telephones in the target area were excluded. Persons
not having residential telephones were, of course, excluded
as well by this approach. The percentage of such persons
is approximately 6% in Lansing. The telephone company re-

presentatives believe most of these persons to be single--

74

often students or transients. They did not believe that
families of any kind would be overrepresented among those

without telephones.

Study Sample

In order to make the desired comparisons it was
necessary to obtain an adequate sized representative sample
of married and unmarried female heads of households with
dependent children, residing in Lansing. It was further
required that there be approximately equal numbers of mar-
ried and unmarried respondents. Of course, many variables
might have been considered, which would have required a
huge sample and analysis. Limiting this study to the key
variables produced a manageable analysis requiring approxi-

mately 100 married and 100 single-parent respondents.

Sampling Method

 

The key sampling problem was to obtain an adequate
sample of female single parent heads of household. Although
an important and rapidly growing segment of the population,
they make up only a small fraction of all households. In
1970, for example, they added up to 2,551 out of 42,643, or
6%, of Lansing households (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973).

It was decided early on to obtain a random sample.
Prior research has relied on nonprobabilistic sampling or
on special populations. Since this was to be a study of a
representative sample of Lansing mothers, an area proba-

bility sample was inapprOpriate. There was neither time

75

nor money to do the necessary door-to-door screening in
pursuit of the single-parent stratum. Furthermore, better
procedures were available.

Telephone screening was selected early in the survey
design to permit the screening of large numbers of persons
quickly. Sampling from the latest Lansing telephone book
was considered but rejected, primarily because it omits
approximately 13% of leased lines as unpublished/unlisted
numbers. It was also, of necessity, somewhat out of date.

The use of the latest Polk City Directory for Lan—
sing (Polk, 1977) was considered., Investigation of this
source turned up a number of omissions and obsolete and
incorrect items in the name list. This finding was in
agreement with Kish (1965). There existed no adequate list
from which to obtain a representative sample of Lansing
mothers to screen.

The remaining option was to sample by random digit
dialing, a method discussed by Dillman (1978) and Sudman
(1976).

Random digit dialing requires the production of a
random list of artificially constructed telephone numbers
with exchanges covering the survey area. First a list of
all such exchanges is obtained. The telephone numbers are
then produced one at a time by selecting an exchange at .
random, with replacement, and then appending a four digit
random number to it. Since different exchanges may have

widely different numbers of lines in residential use at any

76
given time, the selection of an exchange should be weighted
by the number of residential lines to produce a random
sample of residential lines (i.e., one in which each resi-
dential line had an equal probability of being selected).
'An adjustment may be made for multiple line residences.

This process is repeated until an adequate sized
list of artificial telephone numbers has been prepared.
Any duplicate numbers are screened out and the list is
then printed. The estimation of what constitutes an ade-
quate number of artificial telephone numbers requires a
knowledge of the number of respondents desired, the per-
centage of possible telephone numbers which are actual
current residential numbers, the percentage of residences
which contain a person who qualifies as a respondent, the
expected cooperation rate, and a contingency allowance.

In the case of disproportionate stratified sampling
where one stratum is several times as well represented in
the general population and screening sample as the other,
the number of artificial telephone numbers required is
determined by the desired size of the sample of the scarcer
stratum. The present survey therefore screened for both
strata until the more common subsample was obtained, then
screened for the less common subsample only. It was pos-
sible to do this because the field work period was short,
and because the date of the interview was not a critical

variable.

77
The method of random digit dialing produces a ran-
dom sample of residences which is current, not out of date
as any printed list would be, and which gives equal pro-
bability of selection to all residential telephone numbers,
including unlisted and unpublished numbers. On the other
hand, its use requires a great deal of screening of non-

working and non-residential telephone numbers.

Screeninngethod

 

The screening of the artificially constructed tele-
phone numbers for persons eligible to participate in the
survey was conducted by short structured telephone inter-
views with closed-ended questions. Since any part of the
random list of artificial telephone numbers is also random,
sections of the list could be distributed to the interview-
ers for parallel screening, and screening could terminate
at whatever point had been reached when the required samples

had been obtained.

Data Collection Method

 

The data collection constraints of this study were
a very limited field work period in which to collect a
substantial amount of data from a moderate sized sample,
a firm deadline of April 15, 1979, and very limited finan-
cial resources.

Robinson (l977a) and Butz and Greenberg (1975) dis-
cuss the measurement of time spent in different activities.

They both reject direct observation as expensive and

78

intrusive. Robinson (l977a) favors the use of a single-
. day dairy. At the same time, he reports that this method
is also expensive, the time period is too short to accu-
rately capture some important activities, and analysis is
laborious.

Butz and Greenberg (1975) agree that the diary or
time budget would produce the most precise data, they con-
sider the one-week time budget, which would reflect an
individual's typical time allocation much more accurately
than the single-day diary. They also, however, mention
the high cost of this data collection methodology.

Moser and Kalton (1972) discuss the usefulness of
the diary method as well. They suggest that this approach
may suffer from high refusal rates and low data quality,
while requiring much work on the part of the interviewing
staff.

It is felt that the present study requires a one-
week family maintenance task performance time period.
There are not enough respondents to smooth out the fluc-
tuations in a daily study, nor to fairly represent infre-
quently performed tasks. The expected response to a
one-week diary was judged inadequate in quality and quan-
tity for this survey. These considerations plus time and
cost constraints dictated the rejection of the diary
method.

Butz and Greenberg (1975) suggest the use of

retrospective questioning as a source of "reasonably

79

accurate information on time spent in major household pro-
duction activities" (p. 21). The choice between the diary
and retrospective questioning depends on the subject matter
of the survey and the ability of respondents to recall the
necessary information (Moser and Kalton, 1972). The acti-
vities in question being basic in the lives of the respond-
ents and retrospectivity being minimal, it was expected
that recall would be at least adequate. On balance, it was
felt that the resources of this survey would be best uti-
lized, and reasonably accurate data representative of
people's time allocation would be obtained, through the use
of retrospective family task performance questions regard-
ing the seven-day period immediately prior to the interview.

The female head of household was relied upon to
provide the task performance data for all task performers.
The impracticality of attempting to obtain these data
directly is obvious. Fortunately, agreement between spouses,
at least, has been found to be high (Berk, Shih and Ber-
heide, 1978). In any case, the female head of household is
the best single source for this information.

The choice still remained as to whether to utilize
a questionnaire or an interview. The data collection con-
straints made a mailed questionnaire with follow-ups an
undesirable choice. It was also felt that the questionnaire
required the guidance of an interviewer to assure proper

completion. A questionnaire of this difficulty and size is

80

sometimes left with the respondent and picked up or mailed
in later. There may be some associated face-to-face inter-
viewing as well. It was not desirable to require the
interviewers to make two trips to each respondent (or more
if difficulties arose). It was also felt that, in view of
the schedule, respondents should not be relied on to com-
plete the key instrument by themselves and return it to

the investigator.

The decision to utilize interviewing as the sole
data collection method still allowed a number of options.
The interviews might have been by telephone, even in the
same call as the screening, if convenient to the respondent.
It was felt that this interview was better suited to a
face-to-face situation. It was also felt that better
quality responses might be obtained face-to-face, with less
missing data.

A final choice was to adOpt a structured format
with closed-ended questions. The required data lent them-
selves well to this approach. Nothing would be gained by
allowing an unstructured format and/or open-ended questions,
and much work would have been created in utilizing the
resulting protocols. Only a very limited amount of probing
was permitted.

The selected data collection method, then, was
face-to-face interviewing using a structured format and
closed-ended questions, including retrospective task per-

formance questions.

81

Required Screening Sample

 

The methodology described above was calculated to
require the screening of approximately 9000 artificially
constructed telephone numbers to obtain 100 married mothers
and 100 female single parents, heads of household, with one
or more dependent children. The expected cooperation rate
was set at 67%, a typical figure for various kinds of sur-
veys over the last 10-20 years. An additional 20% allow-
ance was made for unforeseen losses.

Thirteen telephone exchanges service City of Lan-
sing residential numbers. There are 10,000 possible
telephone numbers in each exchange (nun-0000 through
nnn-9999), and so 130,000 possible telephone numbers in
the set of 13 exchanges which define the population. There
are approximately 50,000 residential City of Lansing tele-
phone numbers, somewhat more than one out of every three
of the possible numbers. Assuming that every residence has
a single telephone number, approximately 36% will be held
by nuclear families with dependent children, and approxi-
mately 6% are held by female headed families with dependent
children.

The number of artificial telephone numbers which
must be screened to obtain the single parent subsample is

then computed by:

(Res. Nos.) (Fem-Head Fams.) (Coop.
(Poss. Nos.)(Tota1 Res's.) Rate) sp

 

 

Nsp (Allow . ) =

where NSp is the number of female single parent respondents

82

desired, and Ts is the number of artificial telephone

P
numbers which must be screened to obtain that subsample.
Substituting the estimates of these quantities:
(100)(1.2) = (1/3)(6/100)(2/3)TSp
so TSp = 9000.
The number of artificial telephone numbers to be
screened to obtain the married subsample is on the order
of 1500, or 1/6 as many as for the single parents. As

stated above, this screening is accomplished together with

the earlier single parent screening.

B. The Survey Instruments and Materials

 

The Family Work Survey required a variety of in-
struments and materials during its various stages. The
first instrument utilized was the Interviewer Question-
naire, during the interviewer hiring process.

The Field Test Feedback Form was used in evaluating
and finalizing the Screening Interview and Family Work
Interview.

During the field work, the Screening Record Form
and Screening Interview were used in the screening process,
and the Letter of Introduction, Informed Consent Form,
Family WOrk Interview, Income Card and Performance Work-
sheet were utilized in the parallel study interview process.
The Interview Record Form served as a record of field work

status.

83

Subsequent to the completion of the primary data
collection phase, a Reinterview was employed to measure
reliability, a Non-Respondent Interview and Data Collec-
tion forms to examine validity, and call-back record

forms to investigate a possible screening error.

Interviewer Questionnaire

The Interviewer Questionnaire (Appendix B) served
two purposes. During the effort to set up the survey, it
was utilized as an application form, a tool for evaluating
possible interviewers. In the analysis, it is a source of
interviewer background data.

In the hiring process it also served to inform the
potential interviewer of the nature and requirements of
the interviewing effort, in particular, the amount of time
and scheduling required. The potential interviewer was
asked if she had sufficient free time and whether she could
work evenings and weekends as well as weekdays. She was
also asked whether she had the free use of a telephone and
an automobile.

The background data included age, marital status,
householder status, ethnic status, and responsibility for

dependent children.

Field Test Feedback Form

 

The Field Test Feedback Form (Appendix B) required
the interviewer's name and whether it was a Screening Inter-

view or Family Work Interview being field tested.

84

The first of three parts of the form was feedback
from the respondent regarding her reactions to the inter-
view procedures and questions, specific items which she
might have felt were confusing, difficult, too personal
or unfair, or upsetting, and suggestions for improvements.

The second part asked for the interviewer's per-
ceptions of the respondent's reactions to the interview.
The third part asked the interviewer's assessment and
recommendations regarding the procedures and question-

naire.

Screening Record Form

 

The list of artificial telephone numbers was pro-
duced in the form of the Screening Record Form (Appendix
B). This was the primary instrument by which survey res-
pondents were obtained. This form was produced at the
Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. Program-
ming and production were performed by the Applications
Programming Office. The form consisted of 260 pages of
standard computer printer paper, each containing 54 arti-
ficial telephone numbers, 27 down the left side of the
page and 27 down the middle of the page, and a double set
of column headings to aid the interviewer in recording
the results of attempted contacts and make the required,
additional tries if there was a busy signal or no answer.
If the number was found to be a business number, this was

also recorded on this form.

85

Screening Interview

 

Each time a person telephoning for respondents
reached her party, not a business, she conducted a screen-
ing interview (Appendix B), recording the respondent's
answer on a copy of the one sheet interview form.

The screening interview consisted of two pages
reduced to one on the front of the sheet and another two
pages reduced onto the back of the sheet. Page 1 was a
record of the interviewer, the telephone number, date and
time of the initial call involving speaking with anyone at
that number and any call back to complete the screening.
It also had a place for recording the sample into which
the eligible household member fit, if any. Page 1 also
contained the introductory text.

Page 2 contained the questions and text for reach-
ing and screening the female head of the household. Page 3
contained additional explanatory text for persons eligible
for the survey, a request to arrange a Family Work Inter-
View, and interview arrangements and directions. It also
recorded, for the first time, the name of a willing res-
pondent.

The top half of Page 4 contained end of interview
remarks and post-interview instructions. The bottom half
of Page 4 contained text for cases where it was necessary
to call back and cases where the household contains no
person eligible for the survey. There was also room for

interviewer comments.

86

A second, slightly different screening interview
form was produced at the point in the field work when only
single parents were being accepted for interviewing.
Questions 4 and 5 on page 2, and question 7 on page 3 were
revised, and instructions were added on page 3 for tele-
phone screeners. These changes simplified screening for
single parents only, allowed the screener to obtain infor-
mation from persons other than the female head of household
herself, and allowed for telephone screening by persons who

would not be conducting the Family Work Interview themselves.

Letter of Introduction

 

A Letter of Introduction (Appendix B) was provided
to each Family Work interviewer. It identified the inter-
viewer by name and certified her employment as an inter-
viewer for the Family WOrk Survey. It was signed by the
author, the field supervisor and the Chairman of the au-
thor's dissertation committee and listed their telephone
numbers. It was also notarized and enclosed in a plastic

protective cover.

Informed Consent Form

 

The. Informed Consent Form (Appendix B) was required
by the Michigan State University committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). It listed six points
to be read and agreed to in advance of the Family WOrk

Interview by the respondent.

87

Point one stated that the respondent had willingly
agreed to participate in this survey. Point two set down
in writing the fact that the respondent had received and
understood an explanation of the survey and the nature of
her participation in it. Points three to six stated that
the respondent understood that she was free to end her par—
ticipation in the survey at any time without penalty, that
the information she provided would be held confidential and
her anonymity would be protected, that the results of the
survey would be made available to her at her request, and
that her participation did not guarantee any beneficial
results to her.

A place was marked at the bottom of the form for

the respondent's signature and the date of signature.

Family WOrk Interview

 

The Family werk Interview (Appendix B) consisted
of a Cover Sheet, a 26-page Interview Form, and a final
sheet for interviewer comments.

The Cover Sheet noted the sample to which the re-
spondent belonged, the interviewer's name and/or number,
the respondent's first, last or whole name (and, later,
number), the respondent's telephone number, and the date,
time, place and length of the interview. A place was pro-
vided at the bottom of the Cover Sheet for interviewer

comments.

88

The Family WOrk Interview was organized into sev-
eral parts. Following a brief introduction, a household
census was obtained, including all persons resident or
visiting overnight during the previous seven days, their
relationship to the respondent, sex, age, educational and
employment status, health, and days present.

An enumeration of other relatives, in-laws, friends
and neighbors who might be available to contribute to the
respondent's family maintenance was obtained next. A sin-
gle question explored the respondent's knowledge of com-
munity services available to assist her in taking care of
her family and home.

The next three pages explored the respondent's
willingness to ask for assistance of various kinds from
possible providers, including relatives, friends, neighbors
and agencies. The following two pages explored the same
issues with regard to the husbands of married respondents.

The family maintenance task performance hours were
recorded next. This consisted of five questions, one for
each category of family maintenance task, each asked with
regard to the respondent, children at home, (ex-)husband,
relatives, in-laws, friends and neighbors. Income acqui-
sition/producing activities were asked first, then shop-
ping, home and possession maintenance, meal preparation
and cleanup, and primary child care. A question was then
asked in the same way about child minding time. It was

noted if any task performance by others was paid for.

89

The next set of four questions inquired into the
respondent's formal and informal utilization of mutual
assistance from others in performing family maintenance
tasks. Following this were questions concerning the degree
to which the respondent utilized agencies and businesses,
free or paid, to help in getting family maintenance tasks
done.

A question was asked at this point as to whether
the previous week had been unusual in a way which might
have affected the family maintenance task hours. Current
sources of financial assistance were recorded. The degree
to which the respondent would voluntarily do family main-
tenance tasks if equal cost alternatives existed was
explored next, then the child care alternatives utilized
in a number of special circumstances.

A short section recorded the degree to which the
respondent organized her family task performance. The next
five pages were devoted to obtaining 4 point and 100 point
scale ratings of respondent satisfaction with home, meals,
family life, social life, free time and financial situation.
Corresponding aspirations in each area were obtained, as
well as general life satisfaction and happiness ratings.

A final section served to record a variety of back-
ground details: marital status, months in that status,
religion, ethnic category, education and employment, number

of rooms in home, and income.

90

Space was left for interviewee comments and ques-
tions at the end of the interview form. The interviewer's
comments requested on the back sheet comprised the nature
of the interview setting, others present, interruptions,
respondent's reactions, attitudes and behavior, and any—
thing else the interviewer felt may be helpful in the

interpretation of the data.

Income Card

As an aid in asking the income questions, an Income
Card (Appendix B) was provided to each interviewer. It had
a heading describing in detail the income desired, and
listed nine annual income ranges, identified by letter, from

"under $3,000 a year" to "$25,000 and over a year."

Performance WOrksheet

 

As an aid to the respondent in figuring out her task
performance hours, each interviewer was given as number of
worksheets (Appendix B) divided into Sunday to Saturday

columns and Morning, Afternoon and Evening rows.

Interview Record Form

 

For the purpose of maintaining a current status
record of the field work an Interview Record Form (Appendix
B) was constructed. This form was originally a single
page, but a second page was added to keep track of the

telephone screeners when they were added to the staff.

91

A total of nine columns of information were main-
tained. The first was the interviewer or telephone screen-
er's employee identification number. The second column was
the number of screening interviews attempted and the third
was the number of these persons refusing screening.

The fourth column was the total number of persons
screened into the married sample, the fifth the number of
these refusing to be interviewed, and the sixth the number
who agreed to be interviewedInn:subsequently cancelled.

Similarly, the last three columns recorded the
number of persons screened into the single parent sample,
the number of these who refused to be interviewed, and the

number who agreed but subsequently cancelled.

Reinterview Form

 

The one-page Reinterview Form (Appendix B) was
utilized to record post-test data on representative Family
WOrk Interview questions, to be used in the estimation of
their reliability. A total of seven questions and four
probes were asked.

Question 1 asked for the respondent's hours of house
and possession maintenance during the same seven day period
she reported in the Family Work Interview. Question 2
asked for the same information for the most recent seven
days. Question 3 asked for the hours the respondent's
children at home spent preparing meals and snacks and clean-

ing up afterward during the period reported in the Family

92
WOrk Interview. Question 4 asked for the same information
for the most recent seven days.

Question 5 asked for the number of parents the
respondent had living in Lansing and its suburbs. Question
6 requested the number of adult siblings the respondent had
in the same area. Probes asked whether these numbers were
the same as on the date of the original interview and what
the difference was, if any.

Question 7 reiterated the general life satisfaction
question of the original interview. Probes asked if this
answer was different from the earlier answer given and what
the difference, if any, was.

The respondent number, interview date and reinter-

view date were recorded at the top of the Reinterview Form.

Non-Respondent Interview

 

The Non-Respondent Interview (Appendix B) consisted
of a brief introduction and eleven questions selected to
provide background data comparable to information obtained
from survey respondents. In the order in which asked, these
questions were the survey non-respondent's marital status,
age (on April 5, the mid-point of the survey), employment
status, education attained, minority group membership,
number of children under 18 living with her, number of them
under 6, approximate geographical location and 1978 income.
The survey non-respondent was also asked whether she was

receiving any financial assistance from any public agency

93

at the time of the survey, and whether or not her telephone

number was listed.

Non-Respondent Data Collection Forms

Non-Respondent Interview data for married and single
parent non-respondents were collected on separate forms
(Appendix B) which provided a column for the answers to each

question and for notes.

Call-Back Record Form

 

Data concerning the accuracy with which persons were
screened out as married after that stratum was closed were
recorded on a Call-Back Record Form (Appendix B). This form
provided columns for the telephone numbers of screening
respondents, their marital statuses at screening, any chil-

dren and notes.

C. Measures

What it is necessary to find out about each respond-
ent has been listed in Chapter II, Section E. In what form
is this information obtained? The respondent's marital and
employment statuses are closed-ended questions. The cate-
gories of marital status are MARRIED, SEPARATED, DIVORCED,
‘WIDOWED and NEVER MARRIED. The employment status categories
are NOT EMPLOYED, PART TIME, FULL TIME and MORE THAN FULL.
TIME. The latter two categories were combined as FULL TIME
for the purposes of the present analysis. The dividing

line between categories of employment was left to the

94
definition of the respondent. Long term leave without reg-
ular pay was not, however, considered employment.

Data for the computation of the task performance
measures was obtained as answers to the detailed family
maintenance task performance questions described in Chapter
III, Section B. The data for each family then consists of
a 5x7 table of category of task by category of performer,
as described in Chapter I, Section C. The cells of the
table contain the number of family maintenance task hours
worked by members of each performer category at activities
in each task category in the seven days prior to the inter-
view. The total number of hours spent by the mother (re-
spondent) doing family maintenance work is the sum of the
hours she spent at each of the five categories of tasks.
The total number of family maintenance task hours worked by
her husband or ex—husband, children at home, relatives, in-
laws, friends and neighbors is computed in the same way.

The number Of family maintenance task hours per-
formed by kin is the sum of the hours performed by rela-
tives and in-laws. The number of family maintenance task
hours performed by nuclear family members is the sum of
the hours of the parents and their children. The corres-
ponding figure for female-headed single parent families
consists of the contributions of the mother and her children

living with her. The total family maintenance task hours

95
performed for the family is the sum of the hours contrib-
uted by all performers over all family maintenance tasks.

Recourse to businesses and community services is
categorized into services in support of shOpping (purchas—
ing.and delivery), physical maintenance, feeding (individ-
ual meals eaten out, picked up and delivered), and child
care. Each category of support is further divided into
services provided free and services the respondent had to
pay for. Thus, there are eight questions in the interview

relating to this area. With regard to shopping, physical
.maintenance and feeding it was useful to take Butz and
Greenberg's (1975) advice to use the frequency of occur-
rence during the preceding seven days as a proxy for time
spent. The respondents were asked the number of times a
purchasing or delivery service or a physical maintenance
service was provided. They were also asked the number of
individual meals eaten out by family members, picked up by
them or delivered to them. They were asked, however, the
number of child care hours provided.

The mother's (respondent's) life satisfaction is
an index made up of eight items, six of which relate to
specific satisfactions, plus general life satisfaction and
happiness (see Chapter III, Section B). Each item is a
4 point scale, from 1 for NOT SATISFIED AT ALL to 4 for
VERY SATISFIED. Thus, the index ranges from 8 for entirely
NOT SATISFIED to 32 for completely VERY SATISFIED. This

approach was suggested by discussions in Campbell, Converse

96
and Rogers (1976), Nye (1963) and Burt, Wiley, Minor and

Murray (1978). (See Family Work Interview, Appendix B.)

D. Procedures

 

This section describes the manner in which the
methods were implemented in the actual survey. To obtain
the desired number of interviews in the time available it
was necessary to hire, train and equip a substantial staff
of interviewers. It became evident during the staffing
process that a field supervisor would be needed to share
the effort of supervising the staff, collecting completed
interviews from them and supplying them with fresh materi-
als. Additional telephone screening support also was
required and obtained.

The instruments were field tested, revised and
printed in parallel with staffing and training. At the
same time the list of artificial telephone numbers was
Obtained. Staff then proceeded to screen and interview
respondents during an intensive three week field program.

After all materials had been completed and staff
paid, a period of data assessment commenced. Data were
then prepared for the computer and analyzed.

Care was taken throughout the survey to respect
the rights of the persons contacted, their anonymity and

the confidentiality of their responses.

97
Staffing
This section describes the process by which the
survey staff was assembled and the rationale for choices
among Options. The completed staff consisted of the
researcher, a field supervisor, twelve interviewers and

five telephone screeners.

Interviewers

 

The survey methodology required a staff of inter-
viewers. The size of this staff was determined by the
number of interviews required and the screening effort
required to obtain them, the time allowed for field work,
and the availability of capable personnel.

It was decided in advance that all of the inter-
viewers would be female. This eliminates sex of inter4
viewer as a possible causal variable systematically affect-
ing the data and potentially the findings. It was also
felt that it would be productive of a more comfortable,
less anxious situation for the respondents, benefiting
both them and the survey. It seemed reasonable that they
would be more likely to invite a woman than a man to inter-
view them in their homes, and that they would be more
likely to be open and frank with them.

The Options were to hire student personnel (graduate
and/or undergraduate) or temporary agency personnel, or to
select from among those persons who might be known by or

referred to the researcher. Students were felt to be unable

 

 

 

98

to offer the intensive participation and dedication this
survey required, given their other commitments. Temporary
agency personnel were also felt to be unlikely to have the
personal involvement required, and to live at somewhat
greater distances from the base of operations as well. On
the other hand, personnel acquired from the general popula-
tion might be very diverse in background and ability.

The use of student personnel as the sole source of
survey staff was rejected. Detailed discussions were held
with two temporary personnel agencies, resulting in con-
cerns about the inability to pay interviewers in a manner
which would motivate the desired performance in one case,
and about the survey-agency relationship in the other. The
last option was thus chosen, with the stipulation that all
potential interviewers would be carefully interviewed before
being selected.

It was decided that interviewers would be paid
solely for usable completed interviews. This was done to
motivate the production of interviews, given the short time
available for field work. The maintenance of interview
quality was a function of interviewer selection and train-
ing, close supervision and verification. The amount paid,
$10.00 per interview, was based on a rough estimate of total
time invested in screening, traveling and interviewing to
produce a usable interview, at about $3.33 per hour. This

amount was acceptable to all the prospective interviewers.

 

 

99

The researcher had tentatively discussed the possi-
bility of interviewing with his wife and several acquaint-
ances. Several more prospective interviewers were contacted
through an acquaintance who was developing a job placement
agency at the time. Other interviewers were referred by
friends, by interviewers hired earlier and by the field
.supervisor. The final interviewing staff cOnsisted of
twelve women.

Each prospective interviewer was told in an initial
telephone discussion about the survey and about the demands
it would place on staff. There was some initial discussion
about her background, but most of that was covered in a
subsequent face-to-face interview. At that interview, the
survey and the interviewer's job were reviewed. The Inter-
viewer Questionnaire was completed, and served as a basis
for further discussion. Care was taken to answer any inter-
viewer questions and concerns.

Criteria for selection included Lansing area resi-
dence, free use of an automobile and telephone during the
field work period, availability and adequate free time,
prior experience, evidence of ability and motivation, and
an absence of biases.

Each applicant was called back and offered a posi—
tion as an interviewer. All those interviewed were felt
to be satisfactory for the job. One person was hired and

participated in the training program, but subsequently was

100

unable to participate. She was replaced by an experienced

survey interviewer who received a briefing.

Field Supervisor

 

At the point where the number of interviewers
reached about ten, it became obvious that it would be very
difficult for a single person to supervise this staff alone
and handle all routine and problematical matters during
this short, intense survey. The researcher was fortunate
to be referred to an experienced survey supervisor who
agreed to share the effort. Specifically, it was agreed
that she would review the draft survey instruments with the
author and make recommendations concerning possible improve-
ments, share routine supervision of the interviewers and

verify a sample of completed interviews.

Telephone Screeners

 

At the midpoint in the field work, after the married
stratum had been filled, it became obvious that the screen-
ing for single parents was not going to provide the required
sample before the field work must end. There being no other
experienced interviewers who could be recruited in time,
the researcher contacted one of the temporary personnel
agencies with which he had spoken earlier, and obtained the
services of a total of five telephone screeners, all women,
who would obtain willing respondents for the interviewers.
These personnel were paid an hourly wage by their agency

and the researcher was billed for their services. An

101

additional incentive was offered to them in the form of
a $2.00 bonus for each referral resulting in a usable com-

pleted interview.

Training

Arrangements were made to bring all of the inter-
viewers together for a full day training program, covering
interviewing in general and the specific procedures and
requirements of this survey. The program was held on a
Saturday in a conference room at Michigan State University.
Arrangements were made for child care and refreshments.

Training was conducted by the researcher and the
field supervisor. Time was allowed at the beginning for
informal interaction, to encourage the interviewers to get
acquainted with each other, and hopefully to begin to build
a team spirit and joint commitment to the project. The'
morning session began with introductions and orientation
by the field supervisor. The researcher then reviewed the
nature and purpose of the study, and discussed pay and other
administrative details. After a break, the field supervisor
instructed the interviewers in effective interviewing tech-
niques and discussed the needs of the present survey and
her expectations. The remainder of the morning was taken
up reviewing and discussing the screening record form,
interview, and procedures.

The afternoon was devoted to a detailed review and

discussion of the primary survey interview procedures,

102

instruments and materials. Throughout, a high level of
interaction was maintained, with the emphasis on a thorough
discussion of the interviewers' questions and concerns
until everyone understood what was going to be done and
was comfortable with it. At this session, the interviewers
were equipped with letters of introduction and ID pins,
clip folders, Lansing street maps, calendars, a draft
Family WOrk Interview, and an initial supply of screening
record forms and other survey materials.

An important part of the interviewers' training
was their participation in pretesting the instruments and
procedures. During staffing three interviewers were en-
listed in an internal review and simulated use of the draft
screening interviews and procedures. Immediately after the
training program each interviewer was required to conduct
a survey interview utilizing the draft instrument she had
received. Each interviewer found a person whose marital
and family status would have qualified her for the study
sample and interviewed her, using all the appropriate
materials. At the conclusion of this field test interview
she completed the attached Field Test Feedback Form and
returned the completed interview and feedback to the re-
searcher in the next day or two. In doing this two addi-
tional interviewers practiced the screening procedures.

This process served to introduce the interviewer

to the survey and permit her to adjust her performance

103
before conducting a study survey. It also served as a
field test for the Family WOrk Interview and materials.

As mentioned above, one experienced interviewer
was hired after field work had started to replace a trained
interviewer who withdrew from the study. The new inter-
viewer was thoroughly briefed by the field supervisor.

The researcher discussed any problems, questions
or concerns with each interviewer after their practice
interview, and on an ongoing basis throughout the field
work. The usual occasions for these discussions were when
the interviewers delivered completed forms and/or picked
up blank forms, and during daily status checks. Informa-
tion of general value that came out of conferences with
individual interviewers was passed on to the others.
Interviewers were also encouraged to call the researcher
to discuss any problems, questions or concerns as they
arose.

The field supervisor was thoroughly informed as
to the nature and purposes of the study and survey during
discussions regarding her employment, and in subsequent
discussions in which she, in fact, contributed to the final
versions of the procedures and instruments.

The initial three telephone screeners were thor-
oughly briefed in a joint meeting with the researcher and
survey supervisor. The two screeners hired later were
also thoroughly briefed individually. Like the inter-

viewers, they also discussed any problems, questions or

104
concerns with the researcher during status checks or when

being resupplied throughout the remaining field work.

Field Testing

 

Drafts of the survey instruments, materials and
procedures were reviewed and tested in several ways.
Drafts of all instruments and materials were reviewed by
the researcher's dissertation committee. They were also
reviewed by the University Committee for Research Involv-
ing Human Subjects for their potential impact on survey
respondents. The field supervisor reviewed them as well
for ease Of use and response.

Subsequently, they were field tested by the inter-
viewing staff, as described under Training, above. The
information on the feedback forms and the interviewers'
comments were considered in finalizing the survey instru-
ments, materials and procedures. A total of four practice
screening interviews and eleven practice survey interviews
were conducted. Ten of the latter were returned with feed-

back forms.

Sampling Procedures

 

Sampling was conducted by the method of random digit
dialing, as described in Chapter III, Section A. With the
assistance of Michigan Bell Telephone Company personnel a
list was compiled of the thirteen telephone exchanges serv-
icing City of Lansing and Waverly residences. Current

information was Obtained regarding the number of working

105
business and residential lines on each exchange. Infor-
mation was also obtained as to the number of multiple-
(almost always two-) line residences in each of the three
offices among which the thirteen exchanges were apportioned.
As these numbers averaged only approximately 2.9% of
residences with telephones, the percentage varied little
from office to office, and there were no data which would
allow a meaningful correction by exchange, the uncorrected
number of residential lines in each exchange was utilized
as the exchange weight in constructing the artificial tele-
phone numbers.

The sampling frame for this survey was then all
possible telephone numbers within the thirteen exchanges.
The waverly district and perhaps another 500 residences
outside of the boundaries of the City of Lansing but
ecologically a part of it were captured by this choice.

On the one hand, there was no way to exclude these house-
holds except by complicating the screening. On the other
hand, the sample obtained by not excluding these house-
holds is, in fact, more representative of Lansing than
would have been one strictly restricted to residents of
the City of Lansing.

Utilizing these figures, then, the Michigan State
University Applications Programming Office created a ran-
dom list of 14,032 unique artificial Lansing telephone

numbers on the Screening Record Form. The surplus over

the 9000 telephone numbers calculated to be needed for

106
screening in Chapter III, Section A was obtained at negli-
gible cost as prior insurance against any conceivable
error or problem, given the brief and unrepeatable nature

of the survey.

Screening Procedures

 

Ten consecutive pages of the Screening Record Form
were distributed to each of the twelve interviewers at the
training program. They immediately began screening tele-
phone numbers and making appointments for face-to-face
interviews, allowing several days for the completion, re-
production and distribution of copies of the Family Work
Interview.

The interviewers telephoned the numbers on their
sheets sequentially. If a number was a non-working number
Of any kind they received a recorded message to that
effect and noted this outcome on the Screening Record Form.
If they spoke with someone who indicated that the number
was a business or other non-residential number, they noted
that on the record form. If there was no answer after the
five rings they were required to wait, or if they heard a
busy signal, they recorded that fact. In each case they
continued on to the next number.

In the case of a busy signal or no answer, the
interviewers were required to call back until they had
tried at least once each during a weekday, an evening, and

a weekend day. In fact, the completed record forms indicate

107
that this procedure was generally followed and an average
of at least two calls were made to any number not reached.

When a residence was reached, the interviewer
attempted to complete a screening interview. If it was
ascertained that a potential respondent resided in that
household but was unavailable to complete the screening
interview at that time, she attempted to ascertain when to
call back. In any case, she attempted to reach this person
on at least two additional occasions, noting the outcomes
of these calls on a Screening Interview Form.

When the interviewer reached a female head of house-
hold who was willing to be screened, she completed the
screening interview. If the woman fit the sample, she was
read a short description of the study and asked to partici-
pate in the face-to-face Family Work Interview. If the
woman was willing to be a survey respondent, the inter-
viewer made an appointment to interview her as soon as pos-
sible at a mutually convenient time and place, generally
the respondent's home.

The interviewer was free to respond briefly to
any questions or concerns expressed by the person to whom
she was talking. If further cooperation was refused at
any point she marked this fact in the appropriate place on
the form, and politely terminated the conversation.

During the first half of the field work the inter-
viewer was filling both the married and single parent

strata of the sample. During the second half of the field

108

work married mothers were screened out, the stratum having
been filled. This was accomplished by notifying each
interviewer a day in advance to utilize the single-parents-
only procedure, which appeared on the Screening Interview
Form.

When it became necessary to hire additional staff
to do telephone screening only, the Screening Interview
Form.was modified to allow for screening by either inter-
viewers or screeners and to simplify and expedite the
screening for single parents. The interviewers continued
to work as before, concentrating more than ever on the
Family WOrk Interview. The screeners referred the tele-
phone nmmbers of persons eligible and willing to be res-
pondents to the researcher or field supervisor. The latter
then assigned that telephone number to an interviewer to

follow up.

Interviewing Procedures

 

Interviewing commenced approximately two days after
screening began. The two activities then proceeded in
parallel throughout the field work period, the screening
tapering off in the last few days.

The Lansing Police Department was notified in ad-
vance by letter that the survey would field a team of women
interviewers. This was done for the protection of the
interviewers and to facilitate the resolution of any mis-

understandings. Interviewers could refer concerned persons

109

to the police department as well as to the field supervisor,
the researcher and the dissertation director for verifica-
tion. A very few such calls were received and easily
handled.

All surVey data were obtained from each respondent
in the course of a single face-to-face interview. Inter-
viewers called respondents within a day of their appointment
to confirm the interview arrangements. If the respondent
was not available upon arrival, the interviewer attempted
to rearrange the interview or find out when to call back.

If no one was home, she telephoned later to attempt to re-
schedule the interview. A small number of such cases was
encountered, some of which ultimately produced completed
interviews.

Upon meeting the respondent the interviewer iden-
tified herself by her ID badge and by showing the respondent
her notarized Letter of Introduction. She then gave the
Informed Consent Form to the respondent to read and went
over it with her, responding to any questions or concerns.
The respondent signed the Informed Consent Form and returned
it to the interviewer, who returned it to the researcher or
field supervisor along with the completed interview.

The interviewer attempted to arrange to interview
the respondent alone. Less than complete privacy or lack
of interruption was often the case, but the social environ-
ment was rarely very intrusive. In the few cases where

others commented on answers to survey questions at least

110'
some of this intrusion served to facilitate accurate
reporting.

The interviewer proceeded through the Family Work
Interview form from front to back, following the instruc-
tions on the form. She offered a task performance work-
sheet to the respondent for her use in any way she found
helpful. A considerable number of respondents made some
use of the worksheet, but the majority did not. The work-
sheet, if used, was returned to the researcher or field
supervisor with the completed interview.

To encourage the respondent to report her family
income the interviewer utilized an income card, as recom-
mended by Van Dusen and Zill (1975) and Moser and Kalton
(1972). The respondent had only to indicate which letter
of the alphabet, corresponding to an income range, repre-
sented her family's income.

All but one interview was completed in a single
visit. The interviews averaged one hour in length, ranging
from one-half to two hours. Despite the size of the form
and the amount of information requested, the structured
nature of the interview and the closed-ended nature of the
questions kept the interviewing time down.

Interviewers did what post-interview checking of
the completed forms they had time for. Typically, they
accumulated completed interviews until they found the time
to exchange them for more blank interviews with the re-

searcher or field supervisor. At the end of the field

111
work all materials were returned. After some preliminary
checking of the completed interviews the interviewers and
field supervisor were paid what was due them, the screeners
were paid their bonuses, and the temporary personnel agency

was paid.

Data Assessment Procedures

 

Immediately after the field work ended, the com-
pleted materials were organized. The numbers of screening
interviews resulting in refusals, screen-outs, and face-to-
face interviews were counted. The numbers of face-to—face
interviews obtained with married and with single parents
were counted, as well. Five interviews were found which
were not usable due to the ineligibility of the respondent.
Re3ponse rates were computed at this time.

Also immediately following the completion of the
field work the field supervisor called an arbitrary sample
of about 10% of each interviewer's respondents. She veri-
fied that the interview had taken place and checked the
answers to several basic questions.

After the elapse of approximately three weeks time
from the end of the field work a 10% simple random sample
of respondents was drawn to test the stability of several'
key items. Respondents were contacted by telephone by the
researcher's wife, a member of the interviewing team. She
explained the need for additional information and then

asked two background questions, two task performance

112

questions and a satisfaction question. A brief interview
script and the Reinterview Form were used, each respondent's
answers being entered on a Reinterview Form.

When the reinterviews had been completed, two simple
random samples of non-respondents who were elegible to have
been married or single parent respondents were drawn. This
was done to support an assessment of the external validity
of the findings. The researcher contacted each selected
non-respondent by telephone. Approximately 20% of the
married non-respondents and 25% of the single parent non-
respondents were interviewed, using a single Non-Respondent
Interview sheet and married and single non-respondent data
collection forms. Eleven demographic questions were asked.

Kish (1965:407) suggests that a sample check of
screening exclusions be made. In the process of conducting
the non-respondent interviews it appeared that a few screen-
ing errors had indeed occurred during the field work. An
arbitrary sample was drawn of those women who were screened
out as married by each interviewer after the married stratum
was filled. Contacts were made by the researcher and his
wife, asking only marital status and dependent children at
the time of screening. Answers were recorded on a call-back
record form. In all, 101 persons were spoken with, about

a 10% sample of all those screened out as married.

113

Data Handling and Preparation

 

All survey materials were promptly collected from
the interviewers, screeners and field supervisor by the
researcher. They were quickly transferred to bank safe-
deposit boxes, where all but those in current use were
stored. No one but the researcher and his wife, acting
as a staff member, have had access to any of the materials
since.

After the data assessment call-backs had been com-
pleted, the researcher designed a data record layout and
constructed a code-book. The researcher and his wife then
proceeded to code the data onto standard coding forms.
Only numeric codes were used and all identifying informa-
tion was omitted.

The coding forms were submitted for keypunching
and verifying to the Michigan State University Data Pre-

paration Service.

Data Analysis

 

The data were cepied from the punched cards onto
two magnetic tapes at the Michigan State University Com-
puter Laboratory. One tape was written in the form of raw
data card images. The other was constructed as an SPSS
system.file, containing all the data plus SPSS control
information in binary form.

The data cards were reproduced, one copy going to

a safe-deposit box, the other residing, unidentified, in

114

the researcher's home. Statistical analysis was performed
at Michigan State University and at California State Uni-
versity Dominguez Hills, using SPSS Version 8, the Statis-

tical Package for the Social Sciences (Nie et al., 1975).

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

This chapter is concerned with the information ob-
tained by means of the Family Work Survey. It begins with
a description and assessment of the data. The subsamples
are then described and compared with regard to their demo-
graphic characteristics, family maintenance task performance,
and respondents' satisfactions. The results of the hypo-

thesis tests are reported and discussed.

A. The Data

 

The data generated by this study comprise the follow-
ing:

1. interviewer data

2. screening data

3. interview data

4. reinterview data

5. non-respondent interview data

6. screening error check data
Each of these data sets will be discussed or utilized in

the above order in the following subsections.

115

116

Interviewer Data

 

A team of 12 women conducted the Family Work
interviews. Although these women were unusual in their
availability for intensive employment on short notice,
they represented a wide range of ages and marital status,

as shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1

INTERVIEWER DATA

 

 

 

fizzifizl Number Percent §$zars) Number Percent
married* 5 42 20-29 5 42
separated 2 17 30-39 4 33
divorced l 8 40—49 2 l7
widowed l 8 50-59 1 8
never married 3 25

 

 

 

*living with husband

The interviewers ranged in age from 27 to 56,
averaging 35. All 5 married interviewers had dependent
children, as did all but 2 of the single interviewers.
These latter 2 women had never been married. One of them
was the only interviewer who was not the female head of her
household. One of the interviewers was Black.

The 5 telephone screeners comprised 3 young single
women and 2 housewives‘flxawere somewhat older. One of the

single women was Black.

117

Screening Data

 

Two thousand seven hundred thirty-eight screening
interview forms were returned. Of these, 267, or 9.8%,
indicated that a possible respondent or someone else in the
household had refused to permit a screening interview. An
additional 102 failures to screen were recorded, including
88 cases where the possible respondent was never reached.
The remaining loss includes 3 cases marked "unavailable",

2 who said they had already been contacted, 7 who spoke no
English and 2 who could not understand the interviewer.
Thus 2,369 screening interviews were completed, for an

overall response rate of 87%.

Interview Data

 

Two hundred fifty-six married mothers were reached
and screened during the first half of the field work, when
married mothers were being sought for interviews. One hun-
dred five refused to be interviewed, and 18 more subsequently
cancelled interview appointments. Two additional eligible
marrieds were unavailable during the field work period and
3 interviews were missed. One hundred twenty-eight inter-
views were obtained with married mothers, for an overall
response rate of 50%.

One hundred ninety-one female single parent house-
holds were reached and screened. In 4 cases, the head of the
household was never reached. In 68 cases the eligible re-

spondent refused to be interviewed, and in another 9 cases

118
she cancelled the interview appointment. Five eligible
respondents were unavailable during the field work period
and 3 interviews were missed. One hundred two interviews
were obtained with female single parents, for an overall
response rate of 53%.

Moser and Kalton (1972) estimate that a typical non-
response rate for an ordinary random sample interview would
be around 20%. Longer and more complex interviews would
tend to achieve lower response rates. Zuiches, Morrison and
Gladhart (1976) report a 61.5% overall response rate in a
complex survey of families residing in the Lansing, Michigan
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area.

The present survey was also complex, involving a
minimum of 2 contacts with each respondent, including a
lengthy survey interview. The use of the telephone and the
anonymity of screening contacts made it easy to refuse.
Prior telephone appointments have been found to significantly
reduce the response rate. Inexperienced interviewers have
also been found to achieve lower response rates than pro-
fessional interviewers (Moser and Kalton, 1972). Further:
more, it was not possible to offer respondents a financial
incentive for participating, as was done in the Zuiches,
Morrison and Gladhart (1976) study.

Given these considerations, the achieved response
rates were about what was expected. Furthermore, they were

adequate. The desired sample was obtained, and, as will be

119
seen, it is likely that the sample adequately represents
the population.

The interviews obtained were extremely complete.
For most questions there were no missing data at all. Where
there were missing data, it was usually a single case that
was missing. The worst item lacked 3%%, or 8 cases. In-
come, for example, lacked 3 cases, 2 who did not know and
1 who refused.

By far, the most frequent reason for the absence of
an answer was ”don't know." The worst case, for example,
was the understandable lack of knowledge single parents had
concerning their ex-husbands' use of time to provide finan-
cial support to their ex-wives and/or children. Refusals

were almost nonexistent.

Verification

 

A verification check of about 10% of the interviews
was conducted immediately after the field work was com-
pleted. It confirmed that all checked interviews had been

conducted as reported. No errors were found in the data.

Reliability

 

Discussions by Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch and Cook
(1959), Moser and Kalton (1972) and Wright (1979) make it
clear that there is no perfect approach to measuring relia-
bility. Nevertheless, it is necessary to have some idea
about the reliability of the measures utilized in this sur-

vey. The test-retest procedure is most appropriate to the

120
present study. Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch and Cook (1959)
discuss the difficulties of implementing this procedure
in survey research. As they suggest, it was thought best
to repeat only representative questions, and then, only to
a sample of the respondents.

A 10% sample of respondents was reinterviewed to
measure the stability of response to representative inter-
view items. The 24 respondents were selected at random by
the method described by Moser and Kalton (1972:152-4),
utilizing Babbie's (1973) table of random numbers. The re-
interview sample comprised 13 married and 11 single mothers,
closely reflecting the study sample proportions. The re-
interviews were conducted between 23 and 37 days after the
original interview with each respondent, about the time
interval suggested by Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch and Cook
(1959) and Nunnally (1964).

One interviewer from the survey staff conducted all
of the reinterviews. She interviewed by telephone rather
than face-to-face. The reinterview she used differed greatly
in length, contents, organization and presentation from the
Family Work Interview (see Chapter III, Section B and Appen-
dix B). There was no attempt made to match the time of day
or day of the week of the reinterview with that of the
original interview.

Five items were selected from the Family Work Inter-
view to represent the 3 main kinds of information being

obtained. Two task performance items were selected, the

121

respondent's physical maintenance time and the meal prepara—
tion and cleanup time of her children living at home. These
items were chosen because they tested the respondent's reli-
ability as a reporter of her own and others' efforts and
because they are common activities for the actors in ques-
tion and are likely to produce few zero answers. Two items
of background information were selected, the number of
parents and adult siblings the respondent had in the Lansing
area. The general life satisfaction item was chosen to re-
present the satisfaction data, as the single most represen-
tative item.

Pearson product-moment correlations were utilized
as the measure of stability of the ratio level task perform-
ance and background items. Two comparisons were made for
each task performance item, one with regard to the same
actual week, and the other with regard to the 7 days prior
to each interview. The correlation between interview and
reinterview responses to the items regarding the respondentfis
physical maintenance time during the same week was .65.
One respondent refused to answer this question in the re-
interview. The correlation between responses to the item
regarding her children's meal preparation and cleanup time
during the same week was .70. The same respondent refused
to answer this question in the reinterview, another didn't
know, and a third respondent terminated the reinterview
prior to this question. Between responses concerning the

7 days prior to each interview, the correlations for these

122
two items were both equal to .73, omitting 2 cases of re-
ported real change affecting the mother's hours and 1 case
of real change in the children's hours.

The correlations between interview and reinterview
responses to the items regarding parents and adult siblings
in the Lansing area were .93 and .97, respectively. There
was some evidence that the definition of the geographical
area may have been confusing in at least one case.

The choice of a reliability coefficient for the
satisfaction item was less straightforward. If the re-
sponses are assumed to be interval level data the Pearson
product-moment correlation coefficient is warranted, and
is calculated to be equal to .51. If only ordinal level
data is assumed, Kendall's tau is the most appropriate
measure (Nie et al., 1975), and it is equal to .54. Hays
(1963) suggests the use of the gamma statistic, the coeffi-
cient of predictive association between sets of ordered
classes, on the grounds that it has a simpler interpreta-
tion than tau when ties are present. Gamma is .83 for the
general life satisfaction item. This is the difference
between the probability that two respondents' scores will
have the same rank order on test and retest and the proba-
bility that their scores will be in a different order for
all pairs of respondents whose scores are united in either
test.

In fact, from inspection alone, the reliability of

this item looks very good. Sixteen of the 23 pairs of

123
responses, or 70%, were tied at 2, 3 or 4. Six responses
changed by l, 3 up and 3 down. The single case of a change
by 2 was the only case in which the original survey re-
sponse was a 1, completely dissatisfied. This and 1 case
in which a change of -1 was recorded were interviews in
which poor recall was made note of. Another case of a
change by -l was noted to be real change. Three additional
respondents stated in the reinterview that their life satis-
faction was different from what it was at the time of the
Family Work Interview, when in fact it was reported the same.

By comparison, Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976)
obtained a correlation (r) of .428 for the test-retest sta-
bility of their overall life satisfaction item over an 8
month interval. Converse and Robinson obtained a Kendall's
tau of .59 between life satisfactions reported 4 to 6 months
apart (Robinson and Shaver, 1973). Robinson and Shaver
(1973) review this and other data regarding the reliabilities
of satisfaction and happiness items and find their stability
”impressive" (p. 17).

In any case, the foregoing relates to the reliability
of a single item in the satisfaction index. Campbell, Con-
verse and Rodgers (1976) found that their composite satis-
faction index showed a much higher stability, at .758, than
any individual item, and in particular the overall life
satisfaction and happiness items.

In their extensive discussion of reliability, Sell-

tiz, Jahoda, Deutsch and Cook (1959) state that "there is

124
no simple answer to the question of satisfactory reliability"
(p. 178). (See also Carmines and Zeller (1979), who suggest
that a reliability of .80 is apprOpriate for widely used
scales.) The test-retest reliabilities of the representative
demographic items were, as expected, very high. The repre-
sentative task performance items, with correlation coeffi-
cients between .65 and .73, were felt to be of satisfactory
reliability. The representative satisfaction item was as
stable as comparable items in published surveys which were
judged to be reliable in a major methodolOgical review
(Robinson and Shaver, 1973). The composite index is likely
to be considerably more reliable. Comparing the Family Work
Survey and the small reinterview program, the former is
likely to have produced the higher quality data. Thus, the

Family Work Survey measures are judged to be reliable.

Validity

The generalizability of the findings to the intended
population depends in large part on the degree to which the
survey sample is similar to the population. An empirical
approach was taken to this question of external validity.
Sample characteristics were compared with corresponding popu-
lation figures. A small follow-up non-respondent interview
program was also conducted.

Twenty-five married and 25 single survey non-
respondents were selected at random and briefly interviewed

by telephone by this researcher. An additional 4 married

125
non-respondents were unreachable and 2 refused. Statements
made at this time indicated that another 4 non-respondents
screened as eligible marrieds might in fact not have been.
A check of 24 more married non-respondents turned up no
other possible screening errors, however. An additional 2
single non-respondents were unreachable and 3 refused.

The non-respondent interviews were carried out over
a 2 week period beginning approximately 3% months after the
Family Work Survey. Several attempts were made to reach
each selected non-respondent if necessary. The Non-
Respondent Interview forms and procedures are described in
Chapter 3, Sections B and D, respectively. The following
discussion presents the results of the population and non-
respondent comparisons.

The marital status distribution of respondent single
mothers is very similar to the corresponding national dis-
tribution (Table 2). The study sample is somewhat higher in
the percentage divorced and lower in the percentage widowed.
The respondent distribution is also broadly consistent with
the distribution of non-respondents. It is, however,
closer to the national figures, generally speaking, falling
between the two.

The employment status distributions of married and
single respondents are quite similar to those of non-
respondents and the corresponding United States distributflmus
(Table 3). In general, a higher percentage of survey re-

spondents and non-respondents were employed than was true of

126

s

 

.ma .8 .a means

boa .oz .mmlm moauom .mpuommm coHumHsmom ucmuuoo .momcmu man «0 common .m .D "mousom
.mhma comm: wom:~.ma Moos: cmuoaflco :30 cuwz .ucmmoud canons: oc cues muooaonmmoos mHmEom «

 

 

 

o.ooa o.ooa mm o.ooa Noa Hmuoa
H.5H o.ma e o.ha ma omfluuoe uo>mz
m.NH o.¢ a m.v m oozoofi3
m.mv o.~h ma m.mm hm omouo>wo
H.v o.o o o.o o sonnet:

m.m~ o.m m m.am mm omumummomll

m.>m o.m m m.Hm mm ucmmnm panama: .omwuuoz

wmmusmoumm mmmucmoumm Hogans mmoucmoumm Hogans
« .m.D mucmocommmmlcoz mucoosommmm msumum Havana:

 

 

 

 

 

mo<mm NAHZGE BZHMém

mAUZHm mn<2mh m0 mDB<Bm AdBHmfiz

N mqmdfi

127

.iom .me

 

v manna .v
nouns .oouom Hoomq may no mowumaumuomnmnu >HMEmm ocm Houfiung

.omHuHmE Hm>mc ocm om3oow3 .omouo>wo .omumnommm ax

 

.moH swa>mm_uonmq assume: ..mama
..A haum>mm .comczoo pom

mmlm .Q .m magma .mam uuomwm mouom Henna Hmwommm .moaumflumum Honmq mo somuom .m .D a“
omcwmucoo cofluoEHOMGM Eoum omuomeoo um>o oco oao whom» ma mumnuoe mo moumum usmE>oHQEm «

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e.Hv m.m m.m¢ lav mm Ame m Away so lame am lode we Ammo as «. mamaom
m.Hm ~.ma m.~m Ame om Ame om Anal om lame ov Ammo mm lave mm cmouumz
magnum
ommflwm mafia mEHu ommflwm mafia OEHH ommmwm mafia mafia muflumz
uoa uuumo lasso no: uuumo uaaso no: nuumo uaasm maumum
ucmEMOHmEm
* .m.D mucoocommomlcoz mucmocommom

 

 

 

 

 

Aumneocv momucooumm

m mgmfifi

mmmmecz m0 mDBdEm EZMZMOAQZH

128
the nation as a whole. Study respondents were also more
likely than non-respondents or American mothers to be em-
ployed parttime. It is felt that the present survey re-
corded more employment, especially parttime, at least in
part because it went beyond the Census Bureau's definition
of employment (see U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1980a) to
include any activity at all, however casual, engaged in to
produce income during the task performance week of record.

The age distribution of married respondents very
closely parallels the national distribution. It is also
similar to that of non-respondents (Table 4). This latter
finding is most evident if age categories are collapsed to
16-34, 35-44, and 45 and over. The median ages of all three
samples are almost identical.

The age distribution of single respondents is close
to the national distribution as well (Table 5). There is
some tendency toward larger proportions at younger ages.
This is somewhat more true of non-respondents, so that the
age distribution and median age of single respondents lie
generally between the national and non-respondent figures,
and close to both.

The prOportions of married respondents who are Cau-
casian, Black or of Spanish origin are each slightly less
than corresponding national population figures (Table 6).
Taking account of the difference in the definitions of the

categories (see Table 6), the proportions of Blacks and

129

.mm .o .om means
.55 .02 .mle mmflumm manommm coflumasmdm ucmnuoo .msmcmo may no somusm .m .D "mouoom

 

.hhma comm: no mo momma ma Moos: cmuoawso :30 suwz um>o oco oao whom» ma mm>H3 a«

.amocuuwn umoa pm mm< «

 

 

 

a.vm m.¢m m.vm woe amocmz
o.ooa mmo.mm o.ooH mm o.oca mma Houoe
H.m Hmm o.v H o.o o Hm>o ocm mm
m.mH omm.m o.m m o.mH mm em on me
v.Hm mmm.a o.mm m m.om mm as 0» mm
h.mm mom.m o.~m ma H.mm om an on mm
m.HH mmm.~ 0.0 o m.ma ma em on ma

Amocmmoocuv
mmmucmouwm H0959: mmmucmoumm Monaco omoucmoumm Hones:
«a .m.D mucmocommmmnsoz mucmocommmm MHMMW

 

 

 

 

 

mammfioz DmHmm<2 m0 ZOHBDmHmBmHQ m0¢

v mqmda

130

.vH .o .m magma .aoa .oz
.mmlm wwwuwm manomwm coHumHsmom uomuuou .momcmo on» mo summon mmumum ponds: "monoom

.mnma scum: «0 mm .mH
woos: cmuoafino G30 :uHB .ucommum osmomon o: :ufl3 uw>o ocm whom» «a mumoHonwmoos mHoEmm «««
.smoguufln umma um mm< «.
.omfiuuma Hm>ms pom ow3oow3 .omono>fio .omumumomm «

 

 

 

 

o.¢m m.Hm m.~m mam :moomz
o.ooa mm~.m o.ooa mm o.ooa moa dance
«.0 NH o.o o o.H H um>o ocm mm
m.~ Hma o.o o m.~ m vm 0» mm
m.va own o.m m m.m m vm on we
m.om mam.a o.m~ n v.om Hm av 0» mm
m.om moo.a o.vm w w.om am am on on
m.>H mvm o.m~ n m.ma om mm 0» mm
v.ma mos o.~a m h.oH ma vN 0» ea

.AmoGMmoosuv
wmmucmoumm Monaco womucmoumm Honeoc momucmoumm Hones:
*«« .m.b mucmosoommmlcoz mucmocommwm «MHMMM

 

 

 

 

 

mmmmBOS *WQUZHm m0 ZOHBDmHMBmHQ m0€

m mqmdfi

 

.N .m .: manoe .NOH .oz .mmlmmwwsom manomom sawpmaomom wcouhso .mSmcmo 0:» mo soopsm .m .D "oohsom
.mocwmsonu c“ mhmneoz .pcoowom OOH on mowdpcoosmm so manpou on
saw 90: co .mpomouozp .mhonazz .cwwfiho omficwmm mo m:0moom voodoo“ mowoomopwo somam coo cowmooswo
.mrma Soho: mo mo hooaonomson ho Ahommpoo owcnpo\aofiooh hp ma Moos: cmpoafino :30 no“: mmfiawaoh **

.o>fimsHoxm haamopss who mowpomopoo owcnum\aowoom *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

Awmm.mv o.ooa Asem.:mv o.ooe Ammo o.ooa Ammo o.ooH Amoev o.ooe Ammav o.ooe proe
.. -u u- u- I- .. Amy o.m lav 0.: on o.o AHV m.o amapo
gamete

Aoasv m.e Awm:.Hv m.m on o.o on o.o Ame m.m Awe e.: nmoaaam
Aswm.av m.em Acme.av e.» Ase o.mH AHV 0.: Ammv m.mm Ame m.m somam
Adam.mv :.ww Aaoa.mmv m.om Amav o.oe Ammv o.mm Away m.:> Amaav m.wm scammoswo

oawcfim oowspoe oawcwm cowahwe oawcfim cowhhds
hhowopoo
s: .m.D * mucoocommomlcoz * mucoocommmm owcnpm\aofioom

 

 

Abonescv owopcoohom
mmmmeo: mo moneDmHmemHa 0Hzmam\q<Ho<m

w mqm<e

132
Caucasians in the 2 samples are likely very close. One of
the married respondents was a Native American.

The sample of female single parents contained a
higher proportion of Caucasians, but smaller proportions of
Blacks and persons of Spanish origin, than did the national
sample (Table 6).

The racial/ethnic distribution of the non-respondents
roughly paralleled the respondent and national distribu-
tions. The respondent figures tended to fall between or
close to those of the other two.

The married and single respondent and non-respondent
samples were roughly similar to each other in educational
attainment (Table 7). The respondent samples, however, had
a smaller proportion of individuals not completing high
school and a larger proportion going beyond high school
than the corresponding national samples. The non-respondent
samples were also relatively low in individuals who didn't
complete high school Married non-respondents were much more
likely to have had some college than members of the national
sample, but were about as likely to have finished or gone
beyond college. The proportion of single non-respondents
completing high school was high, but the proportion going
beyond high school was similar to the national proportion.

In the case of the married respondents, at least
part of the higher educational level may be attributed to
the fact that they were compared with a national sample

which included wives who were not mothers. Non-mothers

.mocomsocu ca moonszz

 

.wa .m .oa wand? .Poa .oz .mmum mowuom mahomom coHumaomom ucmhyso .momsmo one no sampom .m .3

"oopsom

.mH swoon cmuoaflso :30 30:: .0000009 00090:: o: no“: muooaonmmooz madame **

 

.mmnam .mm .2 wand? .wmm .oz .omnm mofiumm mahomom sewaofizmom oomphoo .030000 on» no sawhom .m .3
.mwmfl sons: «0 mo .pm>o 000 :H 00mm 0000905: no 00>“: *

"oopsom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:N.NH :w.ma ow.mH bw.ma 000:
o.ooa Ammm.m:v o.ooa Ammv o.ooH Ammv o.oo~ ANOHV o.ooH Amway o.ooH H0009
:.0 o ::00.:0 :.: :Hv 0.: :00 0.0 :00 0.: :00 0.e 0000» : 00:0 0005

0 1000.:0 0.0 1:: 0.: ::0 0.: :00 0.: 10:0 0.0: 0:00: :
e.0: :00:.ev 0.:: :mv 0.0: :00 0.0m :mmv :.mm :000 p.00 0000» m o: H
000::00
n 0.0: 800.030.: 3: 0.00 a: 0.0: 3: 0.0: :00 3.: 0.32::
11 0.:0 :H00.ev 0.:: ::0 0.0: ::v 0.: :0:0 0.0: ANHV m.0 0000» m 00 :
:00000 00::
:.ma~ A:mo.mv :.0 Adv 0.: :00 0.0 A0V 0.0 Amy 0.: 0000» m
0 :e00.mv 0.0 :00 0.0 ::0 0.: :00 0.0 :00 0.: 0000» e o: :
Hoonom hhopcmSon
xtmamcwm toofiuuoa mamcam oowshos mamcwm cowhhoa
omumaoeoo
.m.= mucmocommmmucoz mocoocommom Hoozom mo whom»

 

 

 

 

 

Aumnsocv mmoacoOAMQ

mmmzeoz ho EzwzzH<BE< A<ZOHE<UDQH

b wand?

134
tend to be older and less well educated than mothers (U. 8.
Bureau of the Census, 1980b). The single respondents were
compared with a national sample of female single parents.
The previous effect is therefore not a factor, but urban/
non-urban differences probably are, as they are in the
married sample as well. The educational status of persons
in urban areas tends to be higher on the average than that
of persons residing in non-urban areas. Support for this
effect may be found in the U. S. Bureau of the Census (1973)
and in Zuiches, Morrison and Gladhart (1976).

The proportions of married and single respondents in
the broad occupational groupings is similar to those for
employed wives and female householders (Table 8). Married
respondents were somewhat more likely than members of the
corresponding national sample to be professional or techni-
cal workers, crafts or service workers and less likely to be
operatives or laborers. Single respondents were more likely
than members of the corresponding national sample to be
crafts or service workers, less likely to be sales workers
or operatives. These data were not obtained for non-
respondents.

Compared to a national sample of husband-wife house-
holds containing related children under 18, the proportion
of married respondents' families with incomes below $10,000
and between $12,000 and $15,000 in 1978 was low, and the
proportion between $20,000 and $25,000 was high (Table 9).

The mean family income of married respondents was slightly

OCCUPATIONAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF EMPLOYED WOMEN

135

TABLE 8

percentage (number)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Respondents U.S.
Occupational
Category married single married* single**

Professional

and Technical 21.1 (16) 14.1 (11) 17.0 13.1
Managerial and

A3 'nistrative 5.3 (4) 6.4 (5) 7.1 6.6
Sales 5.3 (4) 1.3 (l) 7.0 4.6
Clerical 36.8 (28) 34.6 (27) 34.9 34.0
Crafts 3.9 (3) 5.1 (4) 1.8 2.1
Operatives 7.9 (6) 9.0 (7) 12.5 14.7
Laborers 0.0 (0) 1.3 (l) 2.0 1.5
Service 19.7 (15) 28.2 (22) 17.6 23.4
Total 100.0 (76) 100.0 (78) 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

* Employed married women, husband present, as of March

1978.
Source:

U. S.
of the United States:

 

Bureau of the Census,
1979, Table 663, p.

Statistical Abstract

 

401.

** Female householders with no husband present, as of March

1979.
Source:

U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population

 

Reports, Series P-23, No. 107, Table 16, p. 32.

 

 

136

.000000029 00 muonszz

 

.0m .9 .ma 00909 .0m: .02 .owlm 00::mm muuomom newuwaomom pcmhpso .050000 0:» mo sawhom .m .D ”mopoom:
. .ma Moos: 00000050 009000: m00000ucoo .oamsom an 00000: moaosmmsoz0
.wa 0000: 00:00:30 000000: mcwswwpcoo .pcmmohm 0003 .0005 0000:05 an 00000: moaonomoom0
.mpcoocommoplco: oco 00000009000 mo mofiaflfimm:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

000.00 000.000 ::0.0:0 000.000 0::.::0 000.:00 000:
:0:0.0V 0.00: :00:.000 0.00: ::00 0.00: :0:V 0.00: :00:V 0.00: :00:v 0.00: :0000
:0:00 :.: :000.00 0.00 :00 0.0 :::0 0.00 :00 0.0 :0:0 0.00 00>0 000 000.00
A0000 0.: :000.:V 0.0: ::V 0.: :00 0.0: :00 0.0 ::0V 0.00 000.:0 0: 000.00
:0:0V 0.0 ::00.00 :.00 ::V 0.0: :00 0.0: :0:0 0.:: ::00 0.0: 000.0: 0: 000.0:
:0:0V 0.0 :00:.00 0.0 :00 0.:: :00 0.0 :0:0 0.:: :00 :.0 000.:: 00 000.0:
:00:0 0.0 :00:.:v 0.0 ::0 0.: :00 0.0 :0:: 0.0: :00 :.0 000.:: 00 000.0:
:0:0v 0.0: :000.:v :.0 :00 0.00 :00 0.0: :0:0 :.0: :00 :.0 000.0 0: 000.0
::00.00 0.0: ::0:.:V 0.0 :00 0.00 :00 0.0 :000 :.00 :00 0.: 000.0 :00: 000:

.0:00:0 «00:0005 0:00:m 00:0:00 0:00:m 00:0:00 :0:0::000
_ 000: 0: 00000:
:.0.0 .00000000momucoz .00000000000 0000: :0000

 

 

 

 

 

Aswnascv mmwpcoohom

monBDmHmBmHQ mEOOZH

m mqm<e

137
lower than that of those in the national sample. This may
have been due to the selection of too low an income to
represent the highest income category, which was open ended
and which contained a third of the cases, in computing the
mean. The income distribution of married non-respondents
was quite coarse, as most of the cases fell into the top
category. The distribution is roughly comparable to that
of the married respondents, but disprOportionally favors
the highest incomes.

Compared to a national sample of female-headed house-
holds containing related children under 18, the proportion
of single respondents with family incomes less than $7,000
and $25,000 and over was low, and the proportion between
$10,000 and $25,000 high (Table 9). The mean family income
of female single parents is higher than the corresponding
national figure. The proportions of single respondents and
non-respondents by income category are quite similar if the
categories between $7,000 and $11,999 are collapsed. This
is appropriate given the small sample size and consequent
coarseness of the data.

The distributions of married and single respondents'
families by number of children are generally similar1x>those
of non-respondents and national distributions (Table 10).
The families of married respondents are slightly more likely
to have 1 child than those of non-respondents, but are con-
siderably less likely to do so than members of the national

sample. They are, however, slightly less likely to have 2

138-

.00-: 00::00

.m: 000:: 00:00:00 :30 00:3 .9000000 00090:: 0: .000: 0:080m 0:03 00000500:
.me HTCCZ cmhvdfifio E30 Spun? mQHHHEdM QMHSIUCdDmSIm
.0 .0 .: 0:000 .000 .oz

 

.mpxomom 00000::mmm #000000 .030000 0:: mo :00pom .m .2

"00::0m

.000005000 00 0:098:20

.0000 wa 0000:
00:00:00 :30 ".m.D :00 :0000 w: 000:: 00000000 "00000000000100: :00 «00:0 00:00::0 :30 ”0000000000: :00:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.: 00.: 0:.0 0:.0 00.: 00.0 0002

:000.0: 0.00: :::0.:0: 0.00: :00: 0.00: :00: 0.00: :00:: 0.00: :00:: 0.00: :0000

:00: 0.: :000: 0.0 ::: 0.: :0: 0.0 ::: 0.: :0: 0.: 0:00 0o 0
:00: 0.: :0::: 0.: ::: 0.: :0: 0.0 :0: 0.0 :0: 0.: 0
:000: 0.0 :00:.:: 0.0 :0: 0.0 :0: 0.0 :0: 0.0 :0: 0.0 :
:000: 0.:: :000.:: 0.0: :0: 0.:0 :0: 0.00 :0:: 0.0: :0:: 0.:: 0
::00.:: 0.00 :00:.0: 0.00 :0: 0.00 :0:: 0.0: :00: 0.00 :00: 0.0: 0
:000.0: 0.:: ::00.0: 0.00 :0:: 0.0: :0: 0.:0 :0:: :.0: :00: :.00 :

:0:00:m .00:0000 0:0::0 00:0:00 0:00:m 00:00:: 00000::00

0.0.0 mpcmccommmmucoz 00000000000 00 000000

 

 

 

Emma mBHZ OzH>HA zmmauHmo ho mmmzbz wm mquszm

A009550: #000000

OH mam<a

139

children than families of non-respondents, but are more
likely to do so than families in the national sample. A
smaller proportion of married respondents' families have 3
or 4 children and a larger proportion have 5 or 6 children
than either of the other two corresponding samples. The
mean number of children in the families of married respond-
ents is slightly higher than the figure for married non-
respondents and somewhat more than the national figure.

The proportions of mother-child families of respond-
ents and nationally having 1 child are almost identical, and
somewhat more than the figure for non-respondents. Both
respondents' and non-respondents' families were less likely
to have 2 children and more likely to have 3 children than
the national sample. The respondent families were more
likely than non-respondents and national sample families to
have 4 children. Respondent families were very close to the
national proportions for 5 and 6 or more children, but less
than those figures for non-respondents. The mean number of
children in respondent mother-child families lies between
and close to the corresponding national and non-respondent
figures.

Differences in the definitions of the number of
children, as noted in Table 10, account for at least part of
the differences between the distributions and means. "Own
children" also includes foster children (in 2 families) in

the respondent but not the U.S. samples.

140

Overall, the survey sample is very similar to both
the national and non-respondent samples on the basic demo-
graphic variables. Members of the survey sample are a bit
younger and better educated, are more likely to be employed
and tend to have higher incomes than members of the na-
tional samples. This is particularly true of the single
respondents,who were also less likely to belong to a racial
or ethnic minority. By and large these differences are
confirmed by the sample of non-respondents, pointing to
probable real differences between Lansing and the United
States as a whole.

If the samples are representative, can we then as-
sume that the findings will be representative? Two issues
bearing on this question must be examined. It is necessary
to consider whether the findings might have been different
in a different climate and/or at another time of year. The
weather during the data collection phase of the study com-
prised temperatures and precipitation common to Spring and
Fall in most temperate regions, including most of the United
States. It was also not atypical of Winter weather in the
warmer parts of the nation. The temperatures were mid-range,
neither as hot nor as cold as it can get in almost any part
of the United States.

The effects of weather and climatic differences or
changes on the family maintenance process are minimal as
well. By the nature of the process, it will go on under any

conditions in which families are found. The basic tasks

141
must still be performed. Even the time devoted to each task
will not vary greatly, although it is to be expected that
the most severe weather and climates will make some activi-
ties somewhat more burdensome and time-consuming and limit
or preclude the performance of others. The weather condi-
tions under which respondents were performing family main-
tenance at the time of the survey are therefore felt to be
adequately representative.

Given that the climate and season were not such as
to greatly restrict the representativeness of the findings,
is it possible that the characteristics of the specific
community studied might have been such as to produce find-
ings ungeneralizable to larger populations? Lansing,
Michigan and the adjoining Waverly area make up a city with
a population of approximately 150,000. It is neither very
small nor very large as urban places go. It is a state
capital, and contains a variety of government offices at
several levels. It contains both light and heavy industry.
It has several institutions of higher education, including
a community college, a business college and a law school.
It is the urban center of a standard metr0politan satisti-
cal area containing a diversified agricultural sector and a
major university (Zuiches, Morrison and Gladhart, 1976).

It is felt that the routines, activities and conditions of
life in Lansing, and the manner in which family maintenance
is conducted, will not differ greatly from those in most

other urban places.

142
It is concluded, therefore, that the sample is suc-
cessful in representing Lansing women in the deisred cate-
gories, and women in the same categories living in similar
sized cities. It is also concluded that, with due allowance
for the vast range of urban experiences, the present
findings reflect the lives of the women of the hypothetical

population as well.

Screening Error Check

 

During the course of the married non-respondent
interviewing, several persons originally recorded as married
mothers reported that they were separated at the time of
the survey field work. To check the possibility of screen-
ing errors causing a loss of eligible single parents, 101
persons screened out as married mothers were recontacted and
asked for their marital status and whether they had any
children at the time of the screening interview. Ninety-one
cases were as originally recorded. In 8 cases there was a
difference in reported statuses, but the person was ineli-
gible in either status. In 2 cases it appeared thataasingle
parent might have been screened out in error. In 1 of these
cases, as in several of the 8 other cases, there was suffi-
cient uncertainty that one could only say that a screening
error might well have occurred.

Both possible screening losses were of separated
mothers. The overrepresentation of separated mothers among

single parents screened out in error might logically derive

143

from the ambiguity inherent in the married but separated
marital status, if the screening interview was not followed
carefully enough by the screener and/or the respondent.

Random single parent sample loss would have had no
meaningful effect on any part of the analysis.’ Its only
effect would have been to diminish the single parent sample,
which would have only slightly reduced the significance of
some findings. Only in testing Hypotheses 11 and 12 were
the married and single mother strata combined, and in that
case their responses were weighted so as to, in effect, con-
vert the sample proportions to approximate population pro-
portions. .The actual degree to which the proportions of
single parents by marital status may have been distorted in
the sample by differential screening error is undetermined.
The figures in Table 2, however, indicate that the separated
mothers of Lansing, in particular, were not likely to have
been much underrepresented in the sample, if at all, and the
single parent sample was quite close to the national propor-

tions as to marital status.

B. Background Characteristics

 

Fifty-six percent of the single respondents were
divorced, 218% separated, 18% never married and 5% widowed
(Table 2). Sixty percent of married respondents were em-
ployed, 53% of them fulltime. Seventy-six percent of single

respondents were employed, 79% of them fulltime (Table 3).

144

Married respondents ranged in age from 19 to 54,
with a median age of 34% (Table 4). Single respondents
ranged from 18 to 65 years old, with a median age of 32%
(Table 5). Respondents employed fulltime tended to be older
than those employed parttime or not employed. Among single
parents they also tended to have completed more years of
school, averaging more than one full year beyond high
school. The youngest respondents by marital status were
those never married, the oldest the widows. The youngest
subgroup was that of never married mothers who were also not
employed (Table 11).

About 9 out of every 10 married respondents were
Caucasian. Blacks were slightly predominant over persons
of Spanish origin among the remainder. Three out of every
4 single respondents were Caucasian. Blacks comprised almost
all of the rest of the singles (Table 6). Caucasians pre-
dominated among the separated and divorced, Blacks among the
never-marrieds, mirroring their respective contributions to
the growth in the number of single parent families (U. S.
Bureau of the Census, 1980b).

It appeared that single respondents were somewhat
more likely than married respondents to have ended their
formal education without completing high school. Better than
2 out of 5 of each sample did complete high school, however,
and about another 2 out of 5 went on to at least begin col-

lege or equivalent higher education. Married respondents

 

145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.H eHm.OH o o m oo.mH mm.Hm m omsOHQEm poz
o.H mem.OH o H m cm.HH oo.:m : maHpunam
m.m one.mH H m m m:.mH oo.mm mH maHpHHsa
H.m www.mH H m mH mm.mH ow.om mm Haves "ampwtaamm
m.H mmH.m H m mH He.HH mm.mm 4m emHOHQEm poz
m.H :mm.m o 2 NH mm.HH Hm.mm 0H merptam
o.m www.mH m :H m: mH.mH mH.mm mm msHpHHse
o.m mHH.HH m mm we ow.mH om.mm NOH Hmpoe "onch
H.m om:.om *H s m: mm.mH mm.mm Hm emsoHasm poz
H.m me.Hm H m mm mm.mH mm.mm mm osprpam
m.m :mw.mm ; m mm He.mH mm.mm H: merHHae
m.m mom.Hma *o m mHH em.mH :w.:m mmH Haaoe ”emHgth
.e< . .
maoocH .cdmm am :3 .ozom
cmtuHHso » . mw< mHaawm
com: HHSGL sonasz whom» cam: :H Ampadz
czo memH cam: 0Hanpm\moam cam: mspapm mapapm
pcoshoamem Hopwpwz
owpmfipouowpwso

 

 

 

 

mDB<Bm Bzmzwoqmzm Qz< A<9Hm<z Mm mOHBmHmmBU<m<mo QZDomOMU<m

HH mam<8

146

.cwwocH cmofipoa< mco mafia *

 

 

 

m.H mmm.m .H m H cm.HH cm.mm : em>0Ha58 poz
o.m mmw.m o m H mm.mH oo.mm : merptwm
:.H oom.oH H m m o>.mH om.mm oH msHsHHsm
m.H me>.w m HH m mm.mH mm.em wH Hapoe "emHttms pm>mz
m.m emH.mH o o m ew.HH oo.om m omsOHQEm poz
o.m ooo.m o o H oo.oH oo.mm H merutmm
o.H cem.mH o o H oo.mH oo.m: H msHuHHsm
m.m oom.HH o o m 0:.HH om.m: m Hapoe ”emzoeHz
m.H mom.m o m m mo.HH :m.mm HH emsoneo poz
m.m one.m o o e He.HH m:.mm e msprtam
H.m omo.mH o m mm mm.mH mm.em mm merHHza
H.m eom.0Hw o a m: mm.mH so.mm em Hmpoe "emoto>Ha

 

 

 

 

 

 

coda“ HEOOIIHH mqmdfi.

 

 

 

147
seemed,more likely than the singles to have completed col-
lege and to have gone on to graduate study (Table 7).

Employed married respondents were half again as
likely as employed single respondents to be employed in a
professional or technical occupation (Table 8). They were
also much more likely to be sales workers.l Employed single
respondents were considerably more likely than employed
married respondents to be service workers. Both were more
likely to be clerical workers than anything else.

The mean 1978 family incomes were approximated from
grouped figures on an open-ended scale. Means also over-’
state group incomes due to the weight they give exceptional
cases. The findings are, however, another confirmation of
the general poverty of single mothers. The mean family in-
come of single mothers barely exceeded half of the over
$20,000 a year income of nuclear families. Families in
which the single mother was not employed or was employed
parttime did even much worse than that (Table ll). The in-
come distribution of nuclear and mother-child families are
almost the reverse of each other (Table 9).

Single mothers employed parttime seemed to attain
mean family incomes not even equal to those of single mothers
who were not employed. This difference was nOt, however,
found to be significant by a t—test. The never married
respondents were the poorest by marital status, but the
divorced, widowed and never married respondents who were

employed parttime and the divorced respondents who were not

l48
employed were the poorest groups, averaging $6,000 or less
in 1978 (Table 11).

Married respondents averaged 2.3 own children living
with them to 2.0 for the single parents. The single mothers
were most likely to have 1 child, the married mothers 2.

The married mothers were much more likely than the singles
to have 5 or more children (Table 10). The separated,
divorced and widowed single parents averaged slightly above
2 children each, but the younger never-marrieds averaged

only 1.5 children (Table 11).

C. Task Performance

Married mothers averaged 78 hours a week of family
maintenance work (Tables 12, 15). Of this time, 17 hours
were spent in the acquisition of income, 42 hours in house-
keeping, and 19 hours in primary child care. Families of
married mothers averaged a total of 168 hours of family
maintenance work a week. Seventy-one of these hours were
spent in income acquisition, S9 in housekeeping and 38 in
primary child care. The children at home contributed 22
hours to this total, primarily in income acquisition and
child care. Husbands contributed 62 hours toward family
maintenance, most importantly 45 in income acquisition and
9 in child care. Kin contributed 4 hours, primarily in
child care. Friends and neighbors added little, again

mostly in the area of child care.

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.HOH o.H m.m 0.: m.m m.mH e.we emaonam poz

m.mOH o.o m.m H.H e.o m.oH m.:e mergumm

m.MHH m.o o.m e.m m.m w.Hm H.Hm msHuHHze

w.oHH o.o m.s m.m o.m m.mH o.Hm Hapoa "mesHm
o.mmH m.H m.o w.m >.mm w.eH ».He em»0Hmam poz

m.me e.o e.o H.m e.mm m.mH m.me maHpunwm

m.emH :.H H.H m.m m.Hm m.om o.ww maHpHHsm

m.eoH m.H 0.0 0.: m.Ho H.mm m.ee Hapoe "umthaz
haaadm pecans: @803 pm mzvopm mspoum
Hmmwe muonanoz mocmHgm aHe Auxmv coteHHno Mango: unmasonam prHpmz

Axoms pony

mDB<Bm Bzmzwoqmzm Qz¢ Q<9Hm<z m.mmm902 Mm mmaom moz<zm0hmmm Mm<e z<mz

NH mqm<9

150

Single mothers averaged 81 hours a week of family
maintenance work (Tables 12, 19). Of this time, 28% hours
were spent in income acquisition, 31 hours in housekeeping,
and 21% hours in primary child care. Families of single
mothers averaged a total of 111 hours of family maintenance
work a week. Thirty-five of those hours were spent in in-
come acquisition, 42 in housekeeping and 34 in primary child
care. The children at home contributed 19% hours to this
total, primarily in child care, income acquisition and phys-
ical maintenance. Assistance from separated and ex-husbands
averaged 2 hours a week over the entire single parent sample,
3 hours a week over the separated and divorced groups only.
Most of this assistance was in the form of child care, then
in the provision of income. Kin contributed a little over
3 hours, primarily in child care. Friends contributed.about
4 hours, also primarily in child care but secondarily in
income acquisition. Neighbors contributed little.

Within the single parent sample, the separated
mothers averaged 73 hours of family maintenance a week (Table
23), divorced mothers 82 (Table 27), widowed mothers 81
(Table 31) and never-married mothers 87 (Table 35). Widows
averaged only 12 hours of income acquisition a week, com-
pared to 22 for separateds, 30 for never-marrieds and 32 for
divorcees. Widows, however, spent much more time on house-
keeping than did persons in other marital statuses.

It was hypothesized that nuclear and mother-child

families derive support from others outside the family (H.1L

151

To test whether this hypothesis holds for nuclear families,
the sum of the family maintenance hours performed by the
mother, her husband and the children at home was compared
with the total family maintenance hours. For mother-child
families, the sum of the family maintenance hours performed
by the mother and her children at home was compared with
the total family maintenance hours. UtiliZing correlated
one-tailed Student's t-tests (paired samples) it was found
that total family maintenance hours significantly exceeded
the maintenance hours of members of both nuclear and mother-
child families (beyond .001). The approximately 6 hour
contribution to the maintenance of sample nuclear families
by persons outside the family, while small in comparison to
_the efforts of the family members themselves, is almost cer-
tainly a reality of life in American families. The same may
be said of the approximately lO-hour contribution of others
to the maintenance of sample mother-child families.

Hypothesis 2 stated that husbands of separated
mothers and ex-husbands of divorced mothers work fewer
family maintenance task hours for them than husbands in
nuclear families, but more than zero hours. It was found
that separated and ex-husbands contribute an average ofauxmt
59 hours a week less to their (ex-)wives' single parentfami-
lies than husbands did to their nuclear families (Table 12).
This difference was found to be significant beyond the .001
level by a one-tailed t-test. The separated mothers did,

however, receive an average of about 3 hours a week from

152
their husbands, and the divorced mothers 2% hours from their
ex-husbands (Tables 23, 27).

Hypothesis 3 stated that female single parents work
more family maintenance task hours than married mothers
living with their husbands. It was found that the single
parents did average about 3 more family maintenance task
hours a week than the married mothers (Table 12). This
difference was not found to be significant by Student's t,
however.

It was hypothesized that children of female single
parents work more family maintenance task hours than chil-
dren in nuclear families (H.4). In fact, a difference of
about 28 hours a week was found in the opposite direction
(Table 12). This difference was not, however, found to be
significant using Student's t-test.

Hypothesis 5 stated that kin of female single par-
ents work more family maintenance task hours for them than
kin of married mothers living with their husbands. It was
found to the contrary that kin contributed slightly, but
insignificantly, more to nuclear families than to mother-
child families (Table 12). Decomposing the contribution of
kin into that of relatives and in-laws clarifies this find-
ing. Relatives of married and single mothers contributed
almost identically to family maintenance, a little over 3
hours a week (Tables 15, 19). In-laws of all kinds, how—
ever, contributed almost an hour a week to nuclear families,

almost nothing to mother-child families (Tables 15, 19).

153
This difference was significant at the .001 level using a
one-tailed t-test.

It was hypothesized (H.6) that friends and neigh-
bors of female single parents work more family maintenance
task hours for them than friends and neighbors of married
mothers living with their husbands. Friends did, in fact,
contribute over 3 hours more to the maintenance of mother-
child families than they did to nuclear families (Table 12).
This difference was significant beyond the .01 level in a
one-tailed t-test. Neighbors averaged about half an hour
a week more help to nuclear families than to mother-child
families (Table 12). This difference was not statistically
significant.

Hypothesis 7 stated that fewer total family mainten-
ance task hours are worked by and for families of female
single parents than nuclear families. Mother-child families
did average 57 fewer family maintenance hours a week than
nuclear families (Table 12). This difference was found to
be significant beyond the .001 level by Student's t (one-
tailed). Although the time Spent in the performance of
every category of family tasks was less for the mother-child
family than the nuclear family, the greatest deficit, 35
hours a week, was in income acquisition (Tables 15, 19).

It was hypothesized that female single parents have
more recourse to businesses and community services than
married mothers living with their husbands (H.8). The ser-

vices received from these providers were categorized as

154
shopping (purchasing and delivery), physical maintenance,
meals eaten out or picked up or delivered, and child care.
They were further categorized as services paid for or re-
ceived free of charge. It was found that female single
parents receive an average of 7 hours a week of paid child
care and about another hour free from businesses and come
munity services, compared with about 28 hours and almost
nothing, respectively, for married mothers (Table 13). The
difference of about 48 hours a week of paid child care was
significant beyond the .01 level by a one-tailed t-test.‘
The difference of almost an hour a week of free child care
was significant beyond the .05 level by a one-tailed t-test.
Mothers employed fulltime utilized by far the most paid
child care, 5% hours a week for those married, 10% hours a
week for those single. Not-employed single parents were the
only mothers to receive much free child care, 38 hours a
week.

Female single parents also reported slightly more
free physical maintenance and meals than married mothers,
but the differences were not significant. Married mothers
reported somewhat more paid physical maintenance help. This
difference was statistically significant beyond the .01
level (2-tailed). Married mothers also reported more paid
meals and free and paid purchasing and delivery. None of
these differences were significant (Table 13).

Respondents were asked about their participation in

mutual-help organizations. Eleven of the 102 single mothers

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm.m Hm.H mm.H em.: mH. so. :0. oo. emAOHQEm 302
00. oo.m mm. mm.: 00. wo. mo. 00. meflpppom
Po. mm.OH mm. mm.m mo. ma. No. mo. oefipaasm
mm. oo.e we. H:.m mo. OH. mo. mo. Haves "mech
oo. Hm.o mm. H:.: mo. mm. oH. NH. emsoHasm poz
mo. >w.a an. m».: mo. mm. wo. wo. osflpphom
oo. w:.m we. oo.m 00. mm. ma. mo. oaflpaasm
mo. m:.m Hm. Pm.m mo. mm. ma. mo. Hopoe "oofinhoz
mogm page mope ofiom mosh came oopm came
Ampzonv Ahopadcv AmmSHpV Ammepv mopopm mzpoum
memo dawno maomz monocopcwmz mcwmmonm pcoahoamsm Hopwhdz
Haonsnm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Axmos somv
mDB¢am Bzmzwoqmzm 92¢ A<eHm<2 m.mmmeoz wm
mmoH>mmm waHZDzzoo mz< mmmmmszDm 20mm Qm>Hmomm moz<BmHmm< z<m2

MH mqm<a

156
indicated that they did belong to such an organization.
They stated that they received between ”little" and "some"
family maintenance help from them. By comparison, 16 of
the 127 married respondents who answered these questions said
that they belonged to a mutual-help organization. They
reported receiving "some" help with family maintenance from
them.

Housewives with children averaged about 72 hours of
family maintenance work a week. Married mothers working
parttime averaged about 75 hours. Those working fulltime
averaged 88 hours (Table 12). As employment time increased,
shopping, physical maintenance and meal preparation and
cleanup time decreased. Housewives also spent more time
caring for their children than married mothers employed full-
time or parttime (Tables 16, 17, 18).

The contributions to family maintenance of the chil-
dren and relatives increase with the mother's increasing
employment hours. Husbands contribute about 2 hours more
to family maintenance if their wives are not employed than
if they are employed fulltime, 4 hours more than if they
are employed parttime. The small contribution of in—laws
follows the same pattern. Friends and neighbors contribute
most to nuclear family maintenance when the wife works full-
time, slightly less if she is not employed, and least if she
is employed parttime (Table 12). I

Total family maintenance time for families of house-

wives with children averaged 159 hours a week, for married

157
mothers working parttime also 159 hours a week, and for
married mothers working fulltime 187 hours a week (Table
12).

Female single parents who were not employed averaged
about 77 hours of family maintenance work a week. Those em-
ployed parttime averaged 75 hours, those employed fulltime
84 hours (Table 12). As employment time increased, physical
maintenance, meal preparation and cleanup, and child care
time decreased. Time spent shopping was greatest for those
employed parttime, least for those employed fulltime (Tables
20, 21, 22).

Children of female single parents contribute more to
family maintenance the more hours their mother spends at in-
come acquisition. Friends of parttime employed single
mothers contribute the most to their family maintenance, al-
most 7 hours a week. Friends of non-employed single mothers
contribute slightly less, friends of single mothers employed
fulltime only about 2% hours. Kin follow the same pattern.
Ex-husbands and neighbors contribute most to non-employed
single mothers, less to those employed fulltime, and least
to those employed parttime (Table 12). Only in the case of
single mothers employed fulltime did in-laws make a small
contribution to the kin total.

Total maintenance time for families of female single
parents who were not employed averaged about 105 hours a

week. The corresponding figures for those employed

158
parttime and fulltime were 106 and 114 hours a week, re-
spectively (Table 12).

It was hypothesized that, for married and single
mothers taken separately, employed mothers work more family
maintenance task hours than non-employed mothers (H.9). It
was found that the single mothers working parttime actually
averaged 2 hours less family maintenance time than the sin-
gle mothers who were not employed. Married mothers working
parttime reported an average of 3% more family maintenance
hours than did non-employed married mothers, but this dif-
ference proved not to be statistically significant. The
same is true of the single mothers working fulltime,
despite the 73 hour difference. The married mothers working
fulltime, however, did put in significantly more family
maintenance hours than the housewives with children. The
16 hours difference is statistically significant beyond the
.01 level by a one-tailed t-test.

It was also hypothesized that, for nuclear and
mother-child families taken separately, more total family
maintenance task hours are worked by and for families of em-
ployed mothers than families of non-employed mothers (H.10).
In fact, the nuclear families with a mother employed part-
time averaged very slightly less time spent in family main-
tenance than nuclear families with a mother who was not
employed. The 1% hours a week more time spent at family
maintenance in the mother-child families with a mother emr

.ployed parttime than in those in which the mother was not

159

employed proved not to be statistically significant. The
9 hours more a week spent at family maintenance in the
mother-child families with a mother employed fulltime than
in those in which the mother was not employed also proved
not to be significant. The 28 more hours a week spent in
the nuclear families with a fulltime employed mother than
in those with a non-employed mother, however, was signifi-

cant beyond the .05 level by a one-tailed t-test.

D. Satisfaction

 

Looking at the mean life satisfaction index scores
by marital status (Table 14), it appears that married re—
spondents were somewhat more satisfied than single respond-
ents overall. The married mothers averaged slightly better
than "pretty satisfied" while the single parents averaged
slightly below "pretty satisfied." The small sample of
widows was most satisfied overall among the single parents
but not as satisfied as the married mothers. The never-
married respondents were the least satisfied of the marital
status groups.

The married respondents also exceeded the single
respondents in every specific satisfaction, general satis-
faction and happiness (Table 14). The difference was espe-
cially great with regard to financial situation and
happiness. Other larger differences were with regard to

condition of home, free time and general satisfaction.

0
6
1...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me.mm ooo.m mmw.m mmm.m oom.m 00m.m hma.m mmm.m wwa.m omhoameo uoz
ooo.>H ooo.m ooo.m 0m>.H ooo.m ooo.m 0mm.m ooo.m ooo.m oawpphom
m:>.mm mm®.m ooo.m mum.m mmw.m mmm.m ooo.m 0mm.m Pam.m oEwpaasm
ooo.wm >m>.m m-.m :wm.m :ww.m wam.m mom.m >wm.m ®H®.w kuoe "oopopomwm
mmm.mm m:o.m m:o.m mwo.m >H¢.N mwm.m wom.m >0H.m Nam.m oohoHQEo poz
NOm.mH mom.m mpm.m OmN.H 0mm.m 0mm.m mwm.m wmm.m mom.m wEHupgom
owm.mm mam.m mmm.m mmm.m mam.m m:>.m mam.m wmm.m wm>.m mEHoHHSm
owo.Nm mmw.m mbw.m wma.m mom.m www.m arm.m NwH.m m©>.m HMQOB ”mamowm
o~:.mw wom.m :Hm.m amo.m mmo.m mmw.m mem.m mom.m AMH.m emHonam poz
mo>.:m m»m.m :ma.m bam.m mmw.m wom.m wom.m mmm.m mma.m osfiupgmm
moo.mm oom.m :mo.m mmw.m mmm.m oww.m oww.m :mo.m >mm.m oEHuHsz
wmq.:m Hmm.m ®®H.m oom.w oaw.m wm®.m woo.m wmm.m owo.m Hopes "omwpsdz
axoocH
.pwm ammo: H.pom HcoHpmSHHm HOEHB Hogwq Hoqu mammz oeom
wwwq Iflmmmm .omo Hmflococfih mosh Howoom hawsmh H H mopopm mzudpm
pcoahoamsm Hmuflhwz

coHpuommwpwm coo:

 

 

 

 

mDB<Bm Bzmzwoqmzm Qz< A<BHm<z Nm monBo<hmHB<m z<m2

2H mum<a

.HHm pa echmeam 502mm mechmemm oop pocmmH mechmemm spumtamsm memHomewm stw>mmm .
.HHw pm zoom: pocma 331mm: 00» pocmm gnaw: hupmhmmm 33mm: harem: ~
.Hao pm coamwpmw pocmH Homamwpmw ooo. pocmm mooamwpmm hppmhmmm mowfimmwpmm hho>m2 H

161

 

 

 

ooo.mH oom.m 0mm.m one.H 0mm.m ooo.m ooo.m om~.m cow.m emsoHQEm poz
0mm.mH con.m 0mm.m 0mm.H ome.H 00m.m ooo.m cow.m oom.m merpgmm
oo:.mm ooo.m ooo.m oom.m oom.m ooe.m oom.m oo:.m oom.m msHHHHsa
mme.om wee.m ~mo.m Hem.H emH.m oom.m sea.m omo.m emm.m Haves "emHnnmz nm>mz
Hoo.mm ooo.m mmm.m ewm.m ooo.m ooo.m pmw.m Hmm.m eom.m emHOHQEm poz
oom.mH ooo.H ooo.m ooo.H ooo.m ooo.H oom.m ooo.m ooo.m msprgmm
ooo.mm ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m ooo.m osHHHHsa
cem.mm oom.m ooo.m oos.m oom.m oom.m oom.m cos.m oo:.m Haves nemsoqu
Hmo.mm m»m.m :mm.m mom.H me.m eme.m me.m Hmo.m eme.m oQHOHHEm poz
emw.Hm msH.m sHe.m msH.m vsHe.m mms.m :He.m msH.m emu.m merppam
mmm.wm mmm.m emm.m mmm.m ems.m mem.m sow.m QNH.m mmw.m maHpHHsa
Hmm.mm wHo.m mom.m mmH.m mem.m mae.m 0mm.m me.m mH>.m Haves "emouo>Ho

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooscfi weevil: mqmfih

 

 

 

162

Among single parents the widows were the most satis-
fied with the condition of their home, their meals, family
life, and financial situation, and expressed the highest
general satisfaction. They exceeded the married respondents
as well in the first three items, averaging well above
"pretty satisfied." They were, however, the least happy of
marital status groups, averaging just above the midpoint of
"not too happy" and "pretty happy." On other items the
never-married respondents tended to be the lowest. This was
the case for home, meals, free time, financial situation and
general satisfaction. The lowest item score for any marital
status group was never-marrieds with regard to their finan-
cial situation, just below "not too satisfied." Separated
respondents reported the least satisfaction with their family
life and social life of all marital status groups.

Among the married mothers, repondents seemed to be
more satisfied in inverse proportion to their employment
(Table 14). This was the case for the life satisfaction
index, as well as for all its items, excepting only home and
happiness. Housewives and married mothers employed parttime
reported essentially the same satisfaction with regard to
the condition of their homes, which was higher than that
reported by those employed fulltime. Housewives reported
the highest level of happiness, but married mothers employed
fulltime reported themselves slightly happier than those
employed parttime. The differences between satisfactions

reported by housewives and married mothers employed parttime

163
tended to be much less than those between the parttime and
fulltime employed. This was especially true of family life,
and very noticeable with regard to home and meals. It was
not true of social life or happiness. On the life satis-
faction index the magnitude of the fulltime-parttime dif-
ference was about twice that of the housewife-parttime
difference.

Among the single mothers, those not employed tended
to be slightly more satisfied than those employed fulltime
(Table 14). This was true with regard to the satisfaction
index, the home, family life, free time, general satisfac-
tion and happiness. Single parents working fulltime
reported greater satisfaction with meals, social life and
finances than those not employed.

Single mothers employed parttime were much less
satisfied overall than those employed fulltime and those
not employed. They were alsoless happy and less satisfied
with regard to every specific domain and in general. This
was especially true of general satisfaction and happiness.
The lowest satisfaction reported by married or single
mothers of any employment status was that of single mothers
working parttime in regard to their financial situations,
below "not too satisfied."

Among single mothers broken down by marital and
employment status (Table 14), the lowest mean life satis-
faction index score was achieved by the widowed mother em-

ployed parttime, just below "not too satisfied", followed

164

by parttime employed separated mothers, then never-married
mothers employed parttime and not employed. The widow was
"not happy at all", and "not satisfied at all" in general
and with her social life and financial situation. Other
marital/employment status group means below "not too satis-
fied" were: never-married mothers with regard to their
financial situations and free time and separated mothers
working parttime with regard to their financial situations.

The highest mean satisfaction index score was com-
puted for the widowed mothers who were not employed,slightly
higher even than that of the housewives. Both were above
"pretty satisfied", as was that of married mothers employed
parttime. Non-employed separated mothers averaged almost
"pretty satisfied." The highest item scores were recorded
by the non-employed widows with regard to home, meals and
family life, closer to "very satisfied" than "pretty satis-
fied." Not much lower were the satisfactions of non-employed
separated mothers with their free time and fulltime em-
ployed never-marrieds with their meals.

Overall, married respondents reported the highest
scores for happiness, meals, general satisfaction and family
life, in that order. The highest scores for single respond-
ents were the same, but in the order: meals, family life,
happiness and general satisfaction. Married respondents
were least satisfied with their free time and social lives.

Single parents were much less satisfied with their financial

165
situations than anything else, followed by their free time
and social lives.

It was hypothesized that the life satisfaction of a
mother varies inversely with her family maintenance task
hours (H.1l). A representative sample of Lansing mothers
was constructed by weighting the responses of married
mothers by 3.694/2.499 and those of single mothers by
l/2.499 to compensate for the purposive oversampling of sin-
gle mothers in the Family Work Survey. Multiplying the re-
sponses of married mothers by 3.694 adjusted the sample
married/single ratio to correspond to that of the United
States in March 1979 (U. 3. Bureau of the Census, 1980a).
Dividing both weights by 2.499 preserved the sample size so
as not to distort the tests of significance (Nie et al.,
1975).

The satisfaction index scores of the respondents in
this sample were found to correlate -.20 (Kendall's tau) or
-.28 (Spearman's rank-order correlation coefficient) with
their family maintenance task hours. Both correlations,
while weak, are significant at the .001 level. Weaker, but
still significant, negative correlations were found between
these 2 variables in the unweighted sample.

Within the married sample the 2 variables were found
to correlate -.24 (Kendall's tau), -.34 (Spearman's rank-
order coefficient) and -.33 (Pearson's product-moment coef-

ficient). All 3 measures were significant at or beyond..001.

166
There was no significant correlation between the 2 variables
within the single parent sample, however.

It was hypothesized that the life satisfaction of a
mother varies directly with her family's total maintenance
task hours (H.12). In the weighted sample it was found that
there was no such relationship. A very weak (.11 to .16)
but significant (.01 to .05) correlation was found in the
unweighted sample, depending on the measure used.

Very weak and non-significant negative correlations
were computed between these 2 variables in the married
sample. An almost significant (.067) Pearson product-moment
correlation of .165 was found between these 2 variables in
the single parent sample. Smaller and non-significant

positive Kendall and Spearman coefficients were computed.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS

This chapter begins with a review of the situation
which motivated this study. There followseadiscussion of the
study and its methodology. The survey findings are then re-
viewed and compared with those of others. Conclusions are
drawn and the theory of family maintenance is revised nzlight
of the findings. The chapter concludes with some recommenda-

tions regarding future research and policy.
A. Summary

Women have been working for a living and raising
children alone for a long time. In 1950 many women were en-
gaged in each of these activities, some in both. Family
sociology was just beginning to develop systematic theory,
and what theory there was related primarily to the extended
family systems of the developing nations and the isolated
nuclear family in the industrialized societies. WOrking
mothers and single parents were considered deviants, while
the focus was on the ”normal” family. A single parent family
was referred to as partial or broken in comparisontx>"normal"
nuclear families. To be sure, the deviants represented only

a small proportion of all families.

167

168

The situation has changed dramatically, however.
Working mothers are now in the majority. This is the demo-
graphic fact, even if our cultural norms have lagged some-
what behind. Economic necessity and the increasing
importance given a woman's equal right to find meaning in
her life and power in her relationships through employment
now counterbalance to a degree her homemaking and child care
responsibilities.

The increasing ease and acceptability of divorce and
of mothers working has sparked a major increase in single
parenthood as well. With its increasing visibility and famil-
iarity single parenthood has also become more acceptable in
recent years, further intensifying the increase.

Families with a working mother and mother-child
families have special needs as a result of their particular
structures. The two-income family has a surplus of tasks and
the mother-child family has a deficit of parents relative to
the one-income nuclear family. Thus both are liable to suffer
a shortage of time. The mother-child family is also very
likely to suffer a shortage of money, since men tend to earn
more than women and provide the bulk of a family's income.

It is usually left largely to the mother to cope with the

special demands of the two-income and mother-child family.
The working single mother, in particular, has to cope with
the extra tasks of the working mother and the paucity of

support of the single mother.

169

The consequences of these problems to the mother
often include a degree of role strain, anxiety, fatigue, and,
in the case of the single parent, loneliness and despair.

The consequences to two-income and mother-child families and
their members may include a drminished quality of life through
reduced housekeeping, child care, free time and/or income.

The consequences to society include the existence of large
numbers of mothers experiencing difficulties in their attempts
to earn a living and maintain their families, the cost of sup-
porting many dependent families, and the uncertain effects of
these conditions on the millions of children growing up in
these families.

The societal response to this situation has been
inadequate to date. Although attitudes and norms are beginning
to catch up with demographic reality, the life situation of
working mothers and female single parents is still made unnec-
essarily difficult by a variety of structural problems. Among
the most important of these are a lack of equal pay and job
opportunities for women, the absence of generally available
and affordable quality child care, and a variety of scheduling
problems and other role incompatibilities.

A great deal of effort has been put into the con-
struction of family theory over the past two decades. Much
has also been written about single parent families and working
mothers. Unfortunately, the two literatures have until now
said little to each other. There is almost nothing written

about the newly common family forms which could be called

170
theory, and there is little of family theory that bears any
relevance to the new family forms, and in particular to the
single parent family.

The present study is a small attempt to contribute
to the development of a broader family theory which incor-
porates family type and mother's employment as variables, and
to develop a body of knowledge which could be useful in
responding to the needs of working and single mothers. In
particular, this study focuses on the most basic of subjects,
family survival.

Families are conceptualized as social systems made
up of members who occupy at least the positions of child and
mother and/or father. The most basic function of the family
is to preserve itself and its members. This is accomplished
by the performance of family maintenance tasks by family meme
bers and others. These tasks can be categorized as income
acquisition, shopping, maintenance of home and possessions,
meal preparation and cleanup, and child care. This activity
goes on within a structure of roles and in accordance with the
individuals' own perceptions and needs.

Family type and mother's employment status influence
the manner in which the family maintenance tasks are accom-
plished. A theory of family maintenance was proposed and
specific hypotheses were stated regarding the use of time in
the accomplishment of the family maintenance tasks for mother-

child, working mother and one-income nuclear families.

171

A comparative cross-sectional survey was conducted
in Lansing, Michigan in the Spring of 1979 to obtain data
with which to test these hypotheses. A disproportionate
stratified random sample of 102 female single parents and
128 married mothers was obtained by random digit dialing and
telephone screening and interviewed face-to-face by a staff
of 12 women interviewers. Information was obtained regarding
background characteristics of respondents and their families,

family maintenance task performance and satisfcation.

Findings

Fifty-six percent of the single mothers were di-
vorced, 218% separated, 18% never married and 5% widowed.
Sixty percent of the married mothers were employed, 53% of
them fulltime. Seventy-six percent of the single mothers
were employed, 79% of them fulltime.

The married mothers averaged 34% years of age, 2
years older than the average single mother. The married moth-
ers tended to be slightly better educated than the single
mothers, but both groups averaged more than half a year beyond
high school. The mothers overall tended to be employed in-
clerical work. They were next most likely to be in service
work and in professional and technical work. Employed single
mothers were much more likely than marrieds to be service
workers. Married mothers were much more likely than single

mothers to be professional and technical workers.

172

The mean income of mother-child families barely
exceeded half of the over $20,000 mean income of nuclear
families in 1978. Mother-child families in which the mother
was not employed or was employed parttime did much worse than
even that. Nuclear families averaged 2.3 own children living
at home to 2.0 for the mother-child families.

The single mothers averaged 81 hours a week of family
maintenance work, compared to 78 hours for the married mothers.
This 3 hour difference was not found to be statistically
significant. The allocation of time among the 5 task cate-
gories was, however, markedly different for the single and
married mothers. The single mothers averaged 28% hours a week
acquiring an income, over 11% hours more than the married
mothers, and 21% hours a week at child care, 2% more than
the married mothers. Shopping times were about equal at 4%
hours a week. The single mothers, however, spent less than
15% hours a week at physical maintenance, over 7 hours less
than the married mothers, and 11 hours a week at meal prepara-
tion and cleanup, almost 4 fewer than the married mothers.

Contrary to expectations, the children of the single
mothers contributed less time to family maintenance than the
children in nuclear families, 19% versus 21 hours a week. This
difference was also not statistically significant. The chil-
dren of single mothers tended, however, to spend less time at
the “external" activities of income acquisition and shOpping

and more time at the ”internal" family activities of physical

173
maintenance, meal preparation and cleanup, and child care,
than did children in nuclear families.

Both the nuclear and mother-child families received
some support, an average of 6 and 10 hours a week respectively,
from persons outside the immediate family. Ex-husbands and
husbands of separated mothers contributed 2% to 3 hours a week
to their (ex-)wives' family maintenance efforts, far less than
the 62 hours a week of nuclear family husbands. Relatives
provided just over 3 hours of help a week, regardless of
whether the mother was married or single. In-laws provided
less than an hour a week of help to the married mothers, al-
most nothing to the female single parents. Friends contri-
buted a little under an hour a week to the married mothers,
and over 4 hours a week to the single mothers. Neighbors con-
tributed a little over an hour a week to the nuclear families,
half of that to the mother-child families. This last differ-
ence was not statistically significant.

A total of 168 hours a week were spent in the main-
tenance of the nuclear families, and 111 hours a week to
maintain the mother-child families. Less time was spent in
the performance of every category of family maintenance tasks
for the mother-child families than for the nuclear families.
This difference represents the effect of the absence of a
second parent in the family. The few additional hours report-
edly contributed by single mothers and their friends made up

very little for the lack of a husband's contribution.

174

The largest part of the difference was over 35 hours
a week of income acquisition time, reflecting the husband's
provider role, despite the single mothers' additional efforts
in this regard. The mother-child families also received over
10 hours less a week of physical maintenance, more than 4%
less of child care and meal preparation and cleanup, and over
2% less of shopping.

Neither the single nor the married mothers had much
recourse to businesses or community services for family main-
tenance support except in the area of child care. The single
mothers paid for an average of 7 hours of child care a week,
significantly more than the 2% hours a week paid for by the
married mothers. The married mothers, on the other hand, paid
for more physical maintenance help than the single mothers,
although neither group received much such help. Only 11 to
12 percent of the respondents reported belonging to a mutual
help organization, and even they reported receiving a modest
amount of help with family maintenance in this way.

The married mothers' family maintenance hours rose
as their employment increased, from about 72 hours a week for
housewives to 75 hours a week for those employed parttime and
84 for those employed fulltime. Their total family mainten-
ance hours did not increase as much as their time spent in
income acquisition, however, because as their employment in-
creased they spent less time at the other family tasks.

The single mothers who were not employed averaged

about 77 hours a week of family maintenance. Those employed

175
parttime put in 75 hours a week, while those employed fulltime
spent 81 hours a week at family maintenance. As with the
married mothers, time spent at the other family maintenance
tasks decreased as the time spent acquiring an income in-
creased. The findings for mothers' family maintenance hours
must be regarded as indicative only, as only the difference
between married mothers employed fulltime and those not ems
ployed was statistically significant.

The contributions of the children living at home to
the maintenance of nuclear and mother-child families rose sub-
stantially as their mothers' employment increased. Kin also
appeared to contribute somewhat more to nuclear families if
the mother was employed fulltime. On the other hand, kin and
friends contributed less to mother-child families if the mother
was employed fulltime than if she was employed parttime or not
employed. Total nuclear family maintenance hours rose from
159 a week for families with mothers who were not employed or
who were employed parttime to 187 a week for those in which
the mother was employed fulltime. Total mother-child family
maintenance hours rose from 105 for those with mothers who were
not employed to 106 for those with mothers employed parttime
and 114 if the mother was employed fulltime. The findings for
total family maintenance hours should also be taken to be only
indicative, as only the difference between nuclear families in
which the mother was employed fulltime and those in which she

was not employed proved to be statistically significant.

176

Both the married and single mothers who were em-
ployed reported several times as many hours of paid child care
as did others of the same marital status, 5% hours a week for
marrieds, 10% hours a week for singles. The non-employed
single parents were the only marital/employment status to
report significant free child care, 3% hours a week.

The single respondents were somewhat less satisfied
with their lives than the married respondents. Both tended
to characterize themselves as more or less ”pretty satisfied.”
The single mothers were considerably less happy than the mar-
ried mothers and less satisfied with their financial situa-
tions. They were also less satisfied with the condition of
their homes, with their meals, family lives, social lives, and
free time. Among single mothers the widowed mothers were most
satisfied with their lives, the never-married mothers the
least. The widowed mothers reported, however, the lowest
level of happiness of all marital statuses. Married mothers,
but not single mothers, reported decreasing levels of satis-
faction with increasing employment.

The life satisfactions of the respondents were
found to have a weak but statistically significant negative
correlation with the number of hours they spent at family
maintenance. This was true of the mothers overall and of the
married mothers, but not of the single mothers taken alone.
There did not seem to be a relationship between the life
satisfactions of the respondents and the total maintenance

hours for their families in the overall sample or the sample

177
of single mothers. There was some indication of a possible
positive relationship between the 2 variables in the married
sample.
B. Discussion
Relation of Findings to Prior
Research

The traditional division of family maintenance tasks
and roles by sex, discussed by Hesselbart, 1976 and Slocum and
Nye, 1967, is reconfirmed. Married mothers spend far more
time doing housekeeping (shopping, physical maintenance and
meal preparation and cleanup) and child care than anyone else,
regardless of their employment status. Husbands spend more
time at income acquisition than their wives do, even if the
wife works fulltime. Nevertheless, most wives make a contri-
bution to income acquisition, an instrumental function, and .
husbands contribute to such internal family tasks as physical
maintenance and child care. Thus the evidence requires that
the instrumental function of the father and the expressive
function of the mother be considered relative rather than
absolute, as, in fact, Parsons (1955) had suggested.

Research by Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt (1966),
walker (1970), Robinson (l977a), and Oakley (1974) indicates
that the housekeeping and child care efforts of wives totaled
an average of around 55 hours a week. The first 3 studies,
however, included women without dependent children. The

authors indicate that upward adjustments of 3% to 11 hours a

178
week would be required to reflect the lives of married mothers.
The Oakley (1974) study utilized a sample of young married
mothers ”with at least one child under 5' (p. 198), and also
included child supervision time. Data from Walker (1969) and
Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt (1966) indicate that Oak-
ley's (1974) findings would thus require a downward adjustment
to be comparable with their findings, Robinson's (1977a) and
those of the present study. Given these considerations, the
61 hours of housekeeping and child care averaged by the mar-
ried mothers in the present study would appear to be in good
agreement with the findings of prior research.

Robinson (1977a) and Morgan, Sirageldin-and Baer-
waldt (1966) found that husbands average about 46 hours of
employment a week. The present study found a comparable fig-
ure of 44.7 hours a week. Husbands have previously been
found to average between 4 and 11.3 hours a week of house-
keeping and child care (Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt, 1966;
Walker, 1970; walker and Gauger, 1973; and Robinson, 1977a).
The lower figure, of Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt (1966),
included "regular housework" only. Information in Walker and
Gauger (1973) also indicates that married fathers contribute
slightly more time to household work than husbands without
children. Since the samples utilized to obtain prior find-
ings included families without children, they would require an
upward adjustment to be compared with the finding of the pre-
sent survey of families with children, which was that married

fathers averaged about 8 hours of housekeeping and 9 hours of

179
child care a week. Considering the time that has elapsed
since the prior surveys, perhaps the difference is also an
indication of increasing participation by husbands in inter-
nal family maintenance tasks.

walker (1970) found that wives employed zero to 14
hours a week spent a total of 61 hours a week, and their hus-
bands 65 hours a week, at family maintenance. If the wives
were employed 15 or more hours a week they averaged 70 hours
a week at family maintenance, their husbands 63. The present
study found that non-employed married mothers spent 71.7 hours
a week at family maintenance, their husbands 63.7. Married
mothers employed parttime spent 75.3 hours a week at family
maintenance, their husbands 59.7. Married mothers working
fulltime devoted 88 hours a week to family maintenance, and
their husbands 61.3. Again, the earlier findings would re-
quire some upward adjustment to represent the hours of fathers
and especially of mothers.

The contribution of children to family maintenance
reported by Walker and Gauger (1973) is also confirmed. There
are roughly 2 children per family in the present sample and
they make a combined contribution of about 20 hours a week to
both nuclear and mother-child families. It then appears that
each child, of any age, would spend about 1% hours a week at
family maintenance, somewhat more than the % to 1 hour a week
that Walker and Gauger (1973) reported. I

The findings of this study are also in agreement

with research indicating some, but limited, assistance to

180
nuclear families by kin (see e.g., Adams, 1968 and Lee, 1979).
While the nuclear family is largely dependent on its own ef-
forts for its maintenance, it still receives about 3 hours a
week of assistance from relatives of the wife and almost an-
other hour from her in-laws. Interestingly, the same level of
assistance was found from relatives to single mothers, except
in the case of the small sample of widowed mothers, who re-
ceived no help from kin at all. This tends to support Lopata's
(1978) finding that kin support of widows may have been exag-
gerated, but suggests that neither the nuclear family nor the
mother-child family is, in general, so isolated.

The present study found that employed married moth-
ers averaged 27.9 hours a week of income acquisition, very
close to Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt's (1966) 27 hours a
week. It should be noted that the latter omitted those cases
with the lowest 9% and the highest 1% of employment hours.
Robinson (l977a) reported considerably more hours for em-
ployed women, but noted that those with young or many children
"reported considerably shorter work hours" (p. 50).

The effects of married mothers' employment on their
housekeeping and child care efforts is as reported by Walker
(1969, 1970), walker and Gauger (1973), Robinson (l977a) and
Bose (1978). Time spent in housekeeping and child care de-
clined as the level of employment rose from.not employed
through employed parttime to employed fulltime. Also in ac-

cordance with walker (1970), the total time devoted to family

181
maintenance by married mothers increased with increasing eme
ployment.

In agreement with Walker (1969, 1970), walker and
Gauger (1973) and vanek (1974), but contrary to Blood and
Wolfe (1960), Blood (1963), Hood (1977) and Robinson (1977a),
no increase in husbands' housework, child care or total family
maintenance time was found if their wives were employed. In
fact, the numbers show a slight decline of about 2 hours in
all three variables from husbands of mothers who are not emr
ployed to husbands of mothers working fulltime.

Walker and Gauger (1973) found no increase in the
contribution of children to family maintenance with their
mother's employment. Douvan (1963), Roy (1963) and Rallings
and Nye (1979), however, point to the likelihood of such an
increase. The present research did, in fact, find a marked
increase in the amount of housekeeping and child care per-
formed by children with increasing level of mother's employ-
ment.

The evidence regarding changes in help received from
others outside the family with mother's employment is mixed.
Nuclear families with mothers employed fulltime received about
7.7 hours of such help a week to 5.8 for nuclear families with
non-employed mothers. These findings agree well with those of
Morgan, Sirageldin and Baerwaldt (1966). Unlike Vanek's (1974)
finding, however, mothers employed fulltime were found to make
greater use than others of paid child care. Their families

also tended to eat more meals out and to have somewhat more

182
recourse to paid physical maintenance, along the lines sug-
gested by Fogarty, Rapoport and Rapoport (1971).

Comparable numbers regarding single parents are not
easy to come by. Weiss (1979) estimates that the non-employed
female single parent spends about 9 hours a day at family
maintenance. The present study found an average of just under
11 hours a day. Children were not found to contribute more to
maintaining mother-child families than nuclear families, as
was suggested by Blood (1972) and Weiss (1979).

As reported by Hetherington, Cox and Cox (1976) and
Goetting (1978), however, ex-husbands and separated husbands
were found to contribute a few hours a week to maintaining
their former families. Adams (1968) and Lopata (1978) report
help received from grown children by widows and divorcees.
Such help was reported by the divorced mothers, but not by the
widowed mothers in the present study. No more help was re-
ceived from relatives by single mothers than married mothers
in the present study except for divorced mothers who were not
employed.

This study did find that friends tended to offer
more help to single mothers than to married mothers, in agree-
ment with weiss (1979). It did not, however, support weiss'
(1979) findings for additional help to single parents from
relatives or neighbors. In agreement with Campbell, Converse
and Rodgers (1976) levels of hired household help found in

. this study were very low for mother-child families.

183

Nye (1963) states that working wives have been
found to feel burdened, anxious, frustrated and fatigued.
Nonetheless, he found that the life satisfaction of ems
ployed married mothers, especially those employed parttime,
was greater than that of married mothers who were not eme
ployed. Robinson (l977a) found that employed married
mothers felt more rushed and less satisfied with their lives
in general. The present study found that married mothers at
increasing levels of employment reported decreasing levels
of life satisfaction.

Ferri and Robinson (1976) and Weiss (1979) reported
feelings of loneliness, anxiety and despair among single
parents. The present study found lower levels of life sat-
isfaction and happiness among single mothers than among mar-
ried mothers. This is also in accordance with the findings
of Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976). The widowed
mothers' high satisfactions and low happiness are in agree-

ment with findings of Campbell, Converse and Rodgers (1976).

Conclusions

The theory of family maintenance proposed in Chapter
II is supported in general, but with some modifications.
The immediate family, nuclear or single parent, does receive
support from a wide variety of non-family members. The time
contributed is not large, however, although it is probably
important in individual cases. The nuclear family is not

isolated from kin or others in its social environment, but

184
it may be said to be largely dependent on its own resources.
The same may now be said, with somewhat more emphasis on the
dependence, of the female-headed single parent family.

While their total contribution of time to family
maintenance is less than that of married mothers, husbands
do contribute significantly to housekeeping and child care,
and perform the bulk of the income acquisition. Thus, the
absence of a husband represents a loss of many hours spent
maintaining the family. Even though separated and ex-
husbands contribute a few hours a week to family maintenance,
and friends contribute a few hours more a week to mother-
child families than they do to nuclear families, the primary
family response to the absence of a husband is to make do
with much less family maintenance.

The female single parent may or may not spend a few
more hours at family maintenance than the married mother.
What she does primarily, however, is trade housekeeping time
for more employment and child care hours. Neither her
efforts, nor those of others make up the differences. The
shortage,of income acquisition hours, in particular, together
with relatively low pay, result in generally low mother-
child family incomes. Single mothers have recourse to more
paid child care than married mothers, largely in support of
fulltime employment.

The female single parent who is not employed spends,
as predicted, slightly more time doing family maintenance

than the housewife. She gets by with somewhat less shopping

185 .
and physical maintenance and about the same time devoted to
meals and income-related activities. She spends half again
as much time as the housewife on child care, however, making
up, with some added help from friends, for the lower con-
tributions of the father, other children, in-laws and neigh-
bors. The mother-child family in which the mother is not
employed primarily sacrifices in the area of income produc-
tion, and subsists on a generally very low income.

Also as predicted, the employed female single parent
spends more time acquiring an income, less time at household
work, and perhaps more time at family maintenance overall
than the female single parent who is not employed. Except
for shopping, which those employed parttime do slightly more
of than the others, time spent at housekeeping and child care
decreases as employment increases. Child care performed by
other children at home increases as the mothers' child care
decreases, reducing the overall loss.

Other than increased help from their children pro-
portional to level of employment, single mothers who are
employed do not receive more help with family maintenance.

In fact, those employed fulltime appear to lose support from
friends and relatives, as if they had lost their dependent
status and were seen as being "on their own two feet." De-
spite their efforts to earn a living, even the single mothers
employed fulltime average a few less employment hours and
much lower incomes than husbands with children. The great-

est deficit in total family maintenance hours for families

186
of single mothers working fulltime is in the area of house—
hold work. Total family maintenance hours may increase
with the single mothers' level of employment.

Married mothers do less child care if employed than
if not employed. They also spend less time at each cate-
gory of housekeeping task with increasing employment.
Nevertheless, their total family maintenance hours increase
with increasing employment, as predicted. Generally speak-
ing, only the married mothers' children, and relatives sup-
port their fulltime employment with increased family
maintenance time.

Nuclear families with mothers employed fulltime
total about the same amount of child care-time as nuclear
families with non-working mothers, but somewhat less house-
keeping, especially physical maintenance. They spend the
most hours at income acquisition and at family maintenance
overall, and have the highest incomes of all categories of
nuclear or mother-child families. They also make some addi-
tional use of paid child care.

Couched in dynamic terms, what seems to happen is
that, as the mothers' family maintenance load increases
through single parenthood or employment, it is easier for
her and her family to sacrifice the maintenance of home and
belongings and the preparation and cleaning up of meals
than it is to add family maintenance hours at the sacrifice
of free time or to obtain assistance from others. Child

care is more resistant to reduction, but mother-child

187

families unlike nuclear families, having fewer resources,
sacrifice here also. The actual degree to which an indi-
vidual mother or family will sacrifice family maintenance,
work longer hours or enlist the aid of others is, of
course, a matter of individual preference and opportunity.

The utilization of time in family maintenance is a
very elastic process (Weiss, 1979). Much time can be done
without if necessary. Tasks performed by two or more family
members together can often be done alone. The social and
personal value of such companionable redundancy is lost, but
time is freed for other uses. That which is not strictly
necessary can be put off or left undone. Standards for per-
formance can be lowered, but standards of quality may be
slow to change. It is often possible to work more steadily,
more rapidly or more efficiently. Overdone, the first two
of these strategies may be productive of fatigue and stress.

Thus, single parent families can and do maintain
themselves with far less time than nuclear families devote
to family maintenance. Nuclear families with employed moth-
ers make do with less housekeeping than those in which the
mother is not employed. There is often a very real sacri-
fice in the level at which the family is maintained, however.
and in the quality of life experienced by its members. It
should be noted that, in this process, many individuals suc-
cessfully perform.both instrumental and expressive functions.

As predicted, single mothers are less happy and less

satisfied with their lives than married mothers. This

188

relative dissatisfaction and unhappiness derives from rela-
tive dissatisfaction with their financial situation, free
time, social life, family life, meals and home. These
specific dissatisfactions arise out of life situations which
include low income, possibly a little less free time, less
time and money for a social life and more child care and
other problems in having one, no spouse companionship or
support, less time to prepare meals and maintain the home
and possessions, and sole responsibility for the maintenance
of the family.

Single mothers who are not employed or who are ems
.ployed parttime tend to have especially low incomes and are
therefore inclined to be especially dissatisfied with their
financial situation. Single mothers who are employed, while
still relatively dissatisfied with their financial situation,
also tend to be particularly dissatisfied with their free
time, their family life, and the condition of their home.
This arises out of reduced housekeeping and possibly less
free time. Their generally higher income and more time
spent away from.the family and in the company of adults pre-
sumably contribute to more satisfactory social lives than
experienced by those not employed. It appears that single
mothers working parttime may suffer from the disadvantages
of both the lower income of those not employed fulltime and
the diminished housekeeping time of those employed.

Married mothers do not share the low income and

dissatisfaction with the financial situation experienced by

189
single mothers. Married mothers who are employed, however,
do share the relative lack of, and dissatisfaction with
free time. They are consequentially relatively dissatisfied
with their social and family life. Less time spent at
housekeeping is productive of lower satisfaction with meals
and home. This is especially true of those employed full-
time. Apparently any additional satisfaction because of
the increase in the family income resulting from the wife's
employment is not generally adequate to compensate for other
financial dissatisfactions arising out of the Z-income situar

tion.
C. Recommendations

Research Recommendations

The study reported in this document was a modest and
preliminary attempt to explore in some detail the use of time
in family maintenance by several now-common types of fam-
ilies. Replication would be a useful test of the findings.
Such research could be improved by attention to the exper-
iences of this study. A larger survey could achieve a
greater degree of confidence in its findings, particularly
with respect to the smaller subsamples.

Similar studies in other locales would serve to es-
tablish the limits of applicability of the present findings.
As suggested in Chapter I, comparative studies of urban/
rural, ethnic and national differences would further enrich

family theory and knowledge. Replication of this study from

190
time to time, or some other longitudinal approach to this
subject, would provide useful data concerning changes in
family maintenance over time. Longitudinal studies of
changes in family maintenance in individual families ex-
periencing marital and employment status and life cycle
changes would support the development of a dynamic model of
family maintenance.

Some specific variables which could not be addressed
within the limits of the present research require special
attention. The relationships of efficiency and personal
standards to family maintenance performance need to be in-
vestigated. A richer model of the relationships between
family maintenance, role strain and satisfaction also needs

to be developed and tested.

Policy Recommendations

Simply put, the mother-child family lacks both time
and money. Given the negative effects of this situation,
what can be done to improve upon it? The biggest problem
is in providing an adequate income for the family in the
absence of the traditional provider. The lack of equal pay
and job opportunities together with a lack of training for
the higher-paid occupations and a variety of structural
problems inherent in being a single parent prevents most
single mothers from working as many hours a week as a father

or earning as high an income.

191

The issues of equal pay and job opportunities for
women have become matters of legislative, administrative
and judicial action. The lives of some individuals are im-
proved by such efforts, but a general movement in the direc-
tion of equality goes forward slowly, if at all, against the
inertia of norms and attitudes and a reluctance to accept
the costs of social change. (See, e.g., Beller, 1977.)

Job training would seem to hold promise for those
lacking job skills. Again, there are government programs,
but these have been subject to changes in economic condi-
tions and political philosophy. A helpful development is
the facilitation of job training for single mothers in
schools and colleges and on the job. Readily available chihi
care during classes, low-cost education loans and company-
sponsored training might allow many otherwise dependent
mothers to develop skills which would enable them to support
their families and make an economic contribution to society.

Adequate day care also makes it possible for those
with job skills to go to work and to work fulltime. Im-
provements and expansion in the day care delivery system are
already underway. Private companies have begun developing
chains of day care centers and a few employers are experi-
menting with on-site day care facilities as a service to
employees. The supply is still far from adequate, however,
and the cost is a problem for low-income families. Day care
for children who are ill, but not seriously so, remains a

problem for employed mothers.

192

As was found in the present study, a few mothers
largely avoid these problems by being self-employed, usually
working at home, most often providing child care themselves.
Mothers also cope by obtaining school-hour jobs, leaving
children alone part of the day, and/or obtaining needed
child care on the basis of individual opportunity. These
practices meet the needs of some mothers, but they clearly
do not meet the national need by themselves. The growing
number of "latch-key" children, for example, is considered
a social problem.

Policy should be directed toward supporting the
promising developments mentioned above and others, to faci-
litate the growth of an extensive, high quality, multi-
0ption, affordable child care system. Government can.provide
incentives to development along with standards and regula-
tion. Provision for supervised play, homework and other
activities at school, before and after the regular sessions,
would greatly improve the situation, at no sacrifice to
parent-child interaction. A comprehensive child care system
would incidentally take on some of the burden of sole respon-
sibility that single parents often report, leaving them
feeling less stress, and allowing them the time and money to
do more than just cape with their survival needs. (See
Anqrist and Lave, 1973, and Auerbach, 1979, for more about
child care.)

For many single mothers being employed and/or solely

responsible for a family is either a novel or an ancient

193
experience. Readily available services such as those to
"displaced homemakers", providing guidance and assistance in
obtaining employment and running a household, would greatly
encourage and facilitate single parent coping. Many single
mothers would also benefit from stricter enforcement of child
support, as in Michigan, as described by Chambers (1979).
Sussman (1977) and Cogswell and Sussman (1972) suggest addi-
tional policy issues.

The working married mother tends not to have the
financial problems of the single parent, but she does share
the problems of job discrimination, time scheduling and
budgeting. The same day care system would help meet her
needs as well. It would be very helpful if the trend toward
life education in the public schools continued. Courses
concerned with coping with the basic adult life concerns,
marriage and family realities, and handling time and money
would be useful. Concepts could, of course, be worked into
existing courses. More responsive to people's immediate
needs would be similar courses and workshops at community
colleges and night schools, and perhaps individual or group
counseling.

Although the parent or parents are largely on their
own in maintaining their families, the findings suggest some
other possibilities for increased support. The trend toward
increased two-parent responsibility for children after
separation and divorce should be encouraged to allow a higher

quality of life for both parents and children as well.

194
Divorce arbitration and counseling rather than adversary
proceedings would be likely to facilitate this trend. For
the working wife, one can hope that the trend toward in-
. creasing involvement of husbands in family maintenance will
continue.

Friends appear to be a meaningful source of family
maintenance support to single mothers. Although few re-
spondents reported any help from organizations, many were
involved in mutual aid with friends and acquaintances. The
development of mutual-help groups and organizations focused
on practical issues in family maintenance, such as child
care networks, could be of great assistance to single parents
and working mothers.

Given the limit on mothers' family maintenance time
and their inability to hand off to others much of the work
they do not do, single parent families and nuclear families
with working mothers often sacrifice in the performance of
maintenance tasks. It will be helpful for the single parent
or working mother to carefully consider what tasks can be
adequately performed more easily or in less time. Family
members should examine their standards and priorities for
family maintenance to determine whether less effort in some
areas might be acceptable. Consideration may also usefully
be given to how kin, friends, neighbors and other acquaint-
ances might contribute to family maintenance, in however

minor a way.

195

A few suggestions have been made for how parents,
various levels of government and private industry might
respond to improve the situation for single parents and
working wives. No short-term solutions are apparent. It
seems likely that large numbers of single parents and work-
ing mothers will continue to have much to accomplish in
limited time in order to maintain their families. Indivi-
dual mothers will continue to find individualistic solu-
tions for themselves, and perhaps develop increasing levels
and modes of cooperation with others to their mutual bene-
fit, while the society slowly develops in the direction of

meeting their needs, as best it can.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adams, Bert N.
1968 Kinship In An Urban Setting. Chicago: Markham.

Anderson, Ralph E. and Irl E. Carter
1974 Human Behavior In The Social Environment: A
Social Systems Approach. Chicago: Aldine.

Angrist, Shirley S. and Judith R. Lave
1973 "Issues surrounding day care." The Family Coor-
dinator. October:457-64.

Auerbach, Stevanne
1979 Confronting the Child Care Crisis. Boston:
Beacon Press.

Babbie, Earl R.
1973 Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wads-
worth.

Barry, William A.
1970 "Marriage research and conflict: an integrative
review." Psychological Bulletin 73, 1:41-54.

Bell, Norman W. and Ezra F. Vogel
1960 "Toward a framework for functional analysis of
family behavior." Introductory Essay in Norman
W. Bell and Ezra F. Vogel (eds.), A Modern
Introduction To The Family. New York: Free
Press.

Beller, Andrea H.

1977 "The effect on women's earnings of enforcement
in title VII cases." Monthly Labor Review 100,
3:56-7.

Bellman, Richard Ernest and Charlene Paule Smith
1973 Simulation In Human Systems: Decision-Making In
Psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.

Berk, Richard A. and Sarah Fenstermaker Berk
1979 Labor And Leisure At Home; Content And Organi-
zation of the Household Day. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

196

197

Berk, Sarah Fenstermaker, Anthony Shih and Catherine White
Berheide
1978 "The 'Rashomon' of household labor: a compari-
son of wives' and husbands' accounts of house-
hold task contribution." Paper presented to
the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Sociologists For Women In Society,
San Francisco, September.

Blood, Robert 0., Jr.
1963 "The husband-wife relationship." Chapter 20 in
F. Ivan Nye and Lois Wladis Hoffman (eds.), The
Employed Mother In America. Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Blood, Robert 0., Jr.
1972 The Family. New York: Free Press.

Blood, Robert 0., Jr. and Donald M. Wolfe
1960 Husbands and Wives: The Dynamics Of Married
Living. New York: Free Press.

Bose, Christine _

1978 "Technology and changes in the division of labor
in the American home." Paper presented to the
annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, San Francisco, September.

Bowling, Michael
1977 "Sex-role attitudes and the division of house-
hold labor." Paper presented to the annual
meeting of the American Sociological Associa-
tion, Chicago, September.

Brock, Bernard L., James W. Chesebro, John F. Cragan and
James F. Klumpp
1973 Public Policy Decision-Making: Systems Analysis
and Comparative Advantages Debate. New York:
Harper and Row.

Broderick, Carlfred B.
1971 "Beyond the five conceptual frameworks: a decade
of development in family theory." Chapter 1 in
Carlfred B. Broderick (ed.), A Decade of Family
Research and Action. Washington, D.C.: National
Council on Family Relations.

Buckley, Walter
1967 Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood
Cliffs: N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Burr, Wesley R.
1973 Theory Construction And The Sociology of the
Family. New York: Wiley.

198

Burr, Wesley R., Reuben Hill, F. Ivan Nye and Ira L. Reiss
1979 "Introduction", in Wesley R. Burr, Reuben Hill,
F. Ivan Nye and Ira L. Reiss (eds.), Contempor-
ary Theories About The Family. Volume I.
New York: Free Press.

Burt, Ronald 5., James A. Wiley, Michael J. Minor and James

R. Murray
1978 ”Structure of well-being; form, content, and
stability over time." Sociological Methods and

Research 6, 3:365-407.

Butz, William P., David H. Greenberg
1975 An Economic Methodology For Measuring the Bene-
fits From Children. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse and Willard L. Rodgers
1976 The Quality of American Life: Perceptions,
Evaluations,and Satisfactions. New York: Rus-
sell Sage;

Carmines,Edward G. and Richard A. Zeller
1979 Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.

Chambers, David L.
1979 Making Fathers Pay; The Enforcement of Child
Support. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Christensen, Harold T.

1964 "Development of the family field of study."
Chapter 1 in Harold T. Christensen (ed.), Hand-
book of Marriage and the Family. Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Cogswell, Betty E. and Marvin B. Sussman
1972 "Changing family and marriage forms: complica—
tions for human service systems." The Family

Coordinator 21 Oct.: 505-16.

Deutsch, Morton
1969 "Conflicts: productive and destructive." Jour-
nal of Social Issues 25:7-41.

Dillman, Don A.
1978 Mail And Telephone Surveys; The Total Design
Method. New York: Wiley.

Douvan, Elizabeth
1963 "Employment and the adolescent." Chapter II in
' F. Ivan Nye and Lois Wladis Hoffman (eds.),
The Employed Mother in America. Chicago: Rand
McNally.

199

Ferri,Elsa and Hilary Robinson
1976 Coping Alone. Slough, Berkshire, England:

NFER.
Fogarty, Michael P.,Rhona Rapoport and Robert N. Rapoport
1971 Sex, Career and Family: Including an Interna-
tional Review of Women's Roles. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.

Gibson, Geoffrey
1972 "Kin family network: overheralded structure in
past conceptualizations of family functioning."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 34:13-23.

Glasser, Paul and Elizabeth Navarre
1965 "Structural problems of the one-parent family."
Journal of Social Issues 21, 1:98-109.

Goetting, Ann
1978 "The normative integration of the former spouse
relationship." Paper presented to the annual
meeting of the American Sociological Association,
San Francisco, September.

Hays, William L.
1963 Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win-
ston.

Herzog, Elizabeth and Cecelia E. Sudia
1968 "Fatherless homes; a review of research."
Children 15, 5:177-82.

Hesselbart, Susan
1976 "Does charity begin at home? Attitudes toward
women, household tasks, and household decision-
making." Paper presented to the annual meeting
of the American Sociological Association, New
York, August-September.

Hetherington, E. Mavis, Martha Cox and Roger Cox
1976 "Divorced fathers." The Family Coordinator
25, 4:417-28.

Hill, Reuben and Donald A. Hansen
1960 "The identification of conceptual frameworks
utilized in family study." Marriage and Family
Living 22:299-311.

Holmstrom, Lynda Lytle
1972 The Two-Career Family. Cambridge, MA: Schenk-
man.

200

Hood, Jane C.
1977 "Work-scheduling, work-involvement and parental
role-sharing in sixteen two-job families."
Unpublished abstract, University of Michigan.

Horowitz, Irving Louis
1967 "Consensus, conflict and co-operation." In
N. J. Demerath III and Richard A. Peterson
(eds.), System, Change, and Conflict. New York:
Free Press.

Iglehart, Alfreda P.
1979 Married Women and Work: 1957 and 1976. Lexing-
ton, MA: Heath.

Johnson, Beverly L.

1980 "Marital and family characteristics of the labor
force, March 1979." Monthly Labor Review 103,
4:48-52.

Kantor, David and William Lehr
1975 Inside the Family: Toward a Theory of Family
Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kish, Leslie
1965 Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley.

Layne, Norman R., Jr. and Jay Lowe
1977 '"The effects of the timing of successive births
upon the social organization of American
families." Sociological Focus 10, 1:89-96.

Lee, Gary R.
1979 "Effects of social networks on the family."
Chapter 3 in Wesley R. Burr, Reuben Hill, F.
Ivan Nye and Ira L. Reiss (eds.), Contemporary
Theories About The Family. Volume I. New
York: Free Press.

Litwak, Eugene
1960 "Geographic mobility and extended family cohe-
sion." American Sociological Review 25:385-94.

Litwak, Eugene and Ivan Szelenyi
1969 "Primary group structures and their functions:
kin, neighbors, and friends." American Socio-
logical Review 34:465-81.

Lobodzinska, Barbara
1977 "Married women's gainful employment and house-
work in contemporary Poland." Journal of
Marriage and the Family 39(May):405-15

201

LOpata, Helena Znaniecki
1978 "Contributions of extended families to the
support systems of metropolitan area widows:
limitations of the modified kin network."
Journal of Marriage and the Family 40, 2:355-
64.

McIntyre, Jennie
1966 "The structure-functional approach to family
study.” Chapter 3 in F. Ivan Nye and Felix M.
Berardo (eds.), Emerging Conceptual Frameworks
in Family Analysis. New York: Macmillan.

Merton, Robert K.
1957 "The role-set: problems in sociological theory."
The British Journal of Sociology 8(June):lO6-20.

Merton, Robert K.
1968 Social Theory and Social Structure. 1968 En-
larged edition. New York: Free Press.

Morgan, D. H. J.
1975 Social Theory and the Family. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.

Morgan, James N., Ismail Sirageldin, Nancy Baerwaldt
1966 Productive Americans: A Study of How Individuals
Contribute to Economic Progress. Survey
Research Center Monograph 43. Ann Arbor, MI:
Institute For Social Research, University of
Michigan.

Moser, C. A. and G. Kalton
1972 Survey Methods in Social Investigation. Second
edition. New York: Basic Books.

Nie, Norman H., C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin
Steinbrenner and Dale H. Bent

1975 SPSS; Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences. Second edition. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Nunnally, Jum C.
1964 Educational Measurement and Evaluation. New
York: McGraw—Hill.

Nye, F. Ivan
1963 "Personal satisfactions." Chapter 22 in F. Ivan
Nye and Lois Wladis Hoffman (eds.), The Employed
Mother in America. Chicago: Rand McNally.

202

Nye, F. Ivan ~
1976 "Role constructs: measurement." Chapter 2 in
F. Ivan Nye, Role Structure and Analysis of the
Family. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Nye, F. Ivan and Felix M. Berardo
1966 "Introduction." Chapter 1 in F. Ivan Nye and
Felix M. Berardo (eds.), Emerging Conceptual
Frameworks in Family Analysis. New York: Mac-
millan.

Nye, F. Ivan and Felix M. Barardo
1973 The Family: Its Structure and Interaction. New
York: Macmillan.

Nye, F. Ivan and Viktor Gekas
1976 "The role concept: review and delineation."
Chapter 1 in F. Ivan Nye, Role Structure and
Analysis of the Family. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Oakley, Ann
1974 The Sociology of Housework. New York: Pantheon
Books.

Parsons, Talcott
1955 "Family structure and the socialization of the
child." Chapter II in Talcott Parsons and
Robert F. Bales, Family, Socialization and
Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Pitts, Jesse R.
1964 "The structural-functional approach." Chapter
3 (pp. 51-124) in Harold T. Christensen (ed.),
Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago:
Rand McNally.

Polk, R. L. and Company
1977 Polk's Lansing City Directory. Detroit: R. L.
Polk.

Rallings, E. M. and F. Ivan Nye
1979 "Wife-mother employment, family, and society."
Chapter 9.in Wesley R. Burr, Reuben Hill, F.
Ivan Nye and Ira L. Reiss (eds.), Contemporary
Theories About The Family. Volume 1, New York:
Free Press.

Rapoport, Rhona and Robert N. Rapoport
1971 Dual-Career Families. Harmondsworth, Middlesex,
England: Penguin.

Rice, David G.
1979 Dual-Career Marriage; Conflict and Treatment.
New York: Free Press.

203

Ritzer, George
1975 Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.

Robinson, John P.
1977a How Americans Use Time: A Social-Psychological
Analysis of Everyday Behavior. New York:
Praeger.

Robinson, John P.
1977b How Americans Used Time in 1965. Ann Arbor,
MI: Institute for Social Research, University

of Michigan. '

Robinson, John P. and Phillip R. Shaver
1973 Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes.
Revised Edition. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for
Social Research, University of Michigan.

Roy, Prodipto
1963 "Adolescent roles: rural-urban differentials."
Chapter 12 in F. Ivan Nye and Lois Wladis Hoff-
man (eds.), The Employed Mother in America.
Chicago: Rand McNally.

Schvaneveldt, Jay D.
1966 "The interactional framework in the study of
the family." Chapter 5 in F. Ivan Nye and Felix
M. Berardo (eds.), Emerging Conceptual Frame-
works in Family Analysis, New York: MacMillan.

Selltiz, Claire, Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch and Stuart W.
Cook
1959 Research Methods in Social Relations. Revised
One-Volume Edition. New York: Henry Holt.

Shibutani, Tamotsu
1961 Society and Personality: An Interactionist
Approach to Social Psychology. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Slocum, Walter L. and F. Ivan Nye
1976 "Provider and housekeeper roles." Chapter 5 in
F. Ivan Nye, Role Structure and Analysis of the
Family. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Speer, David C.
1970 "Family systems: morphostasis and morphogenesis,
or 'is homeostasis enough?'" Family Process 9,
3:259-78.

204

Sprey, Jetse
1969 "The family as a system in conflict." Journal
of Marriage and the Family 31(November):699-706.

Sprey, Jetse
1979 "Conflict theory and the study of marriage and
the family." Chapter 4 in Wesley R. Burr, Reu-
ben Hill, F. Ivan Nye and Ira L. Reiss (eds.)
Contemporary Theories About the Family. Volume
II. New York: Free Press.

Stein, Irma
1974 Systems Theory: Science and Social Work. Metu-
chen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Stryker, Sheldon

1959 "Symbolic interaction as an approach to family
research." Marriage and Family Living 21(May):
111-9.

Stryker, Sheldon
1964 "The interactional and situational approaches."
Chapter 4 in Harold T. Christensen (ed.),
Handbook of Marriage and the Family. Chicago:
Rand McNally.

Sudman, Seymour
1976 Applied Sampling. New York: Academic Press.

Sussman, Marvin B.

1977 "The female-headed household: new directions for
public policy.” Paper presented at the twenty-
first annual Merrill-Palmer Conference, Detroit,
April.

Szalai, Alexander (ed.)
1972 The Use of Time: Daily Activities of Urban and
Suburban Populations in Twelve Countries. The
Hague: Mouton.

Thomas, Edwin J. and Bruce J. Biddle
1966 "The nature and history of role theory." Chap-
ter 1 in Bruce J. Biddle and Edwin J. Thomas
(eds.), Role Theory: Concepts and Research. New
York: Wiley.

U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
1979 Special Labor Force Reports. No. 219. "Marital
and family characteristics of workers, 1970 to
1978." washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print—
ing Office.

205

S. Bureau of the Census

1950 Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No.
32. "Children and youth: 1950." Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

S. Bureau of the Census

1951 Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No.
33. "Marital status and household character-
istics: March 1950." washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

S. Bureau of the Census

1971 Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No.

218. "Household and family characteristics

March 1970.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-

ment Printing Office.

S. Bureau of the Census

1973 U. S. Census of Population: 1970. Volume 1:

"Characteristics of the population, part 24

Michigan." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

8. Bureau of the Census

1976 Statistical Abstract of the United States:
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

S. Bureau of the Census

1976.

1977a Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No.
306. "Marital status and living arrangements:
March 1976." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

S. Bureau of the Census

1977b Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No.
313. "Households and families by type: March

1977 (advance report)." Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

S. Bureau of the Census

1978a Current Population Reports. Series P-60, No.
115. "Characteristics of the pOpulation below

the poverty level: 1976." Washington D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

S. Bureau of the Census

1978b Current Population Reports. Series P-23, No.

77. ”Perspectives on American husbands and
wives." Washington D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.

206

U. S. Bureau of the Census

1979 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1979.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

U. 8. Bureau of the Census
1980a Current POpulation Reports. Series P-20, No.
352. "Household and family characteristics:
March 1979." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.

U. S. Bureau of the Census .
1980b Current Population Reports. Series P-23, No.
107. "Families maintained by female house-
holders 1970-79." Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

U. S. Bureau of the Census
1980c Current Population Reports. Series P-20, No.
349. "Marital status and living arrangements:
March 1979." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.

U. S. Bureau of the Census
1980d Current Population Reports. Series P-60, No.
124. "Characteristics of the population below
the poverty level: 1978." Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.

U. S. Bureau of the Census
1980e Current Population Reports. Series P-60, No.
121. "Money income in 1978 of households in
the United States." Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

U. S. National Center For Health Statistics
1980 Monthly Vital Statistics Report. Volume 29, No.
8. "Births, marriages, divorces, and deaths
for August 1980." DHHS Publication No. (PHS)
81-1120; November 10, 1980.

Vanek, Joann
1974 "Time spent in housework." Scientific American.
November: 116-20.

Walker, Kathryn E.
1969 "Time spent in household work by homemakers."
Family Economics Review. September: 5-6.

Walker, Kathryn E.
1970 "Time used by husbands for household work."
Family Economics Review. June:8-11.

207

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

Van Dusen, Roxann A. and Nicholas Zill (eds.)
1975 Basic Background Items for U.S. Household Sur-
veys. Washington, D.C.: Social Science
Research Council, Center For Coordination of
Research on Social Indicators.

Weiss, Robert S.

1979 Going It Alone; The Family Life and Social Situ-
ation of the Single Parent. New York: Basic
Books.

Wertheim, Eleanor S.
1975 "The science and typology of family systems II.
Further theoretical and practical considera-
tions." Family Process 14, 3:285-309.

Wright, Sonia R.
1979 Quantitative Methods and Statistics; A Guide to
Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zelditch, Morris, Jr.
1955 "Role differentiation in the nuclear family: a
comparative study." Chapter VI in Talcott
Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family, Sociali-
zation and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL:
Free Press.

Zuiches, James J., Bonnie Maas Morrison and Peter Michael
Gladhart
1976 "Interviewing families: methodology and evalua-
tion of 'energy and the family' survey."
Research Report 311. East Lansing, MI: Michi-
gan State University Agricultural Experiment
Station.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

DETAILED TASK PERFORMANCE TABLES

This Appendix contains the detailed tables of family
maintenance task performance time by category of performer
and category of task for subgroups of respondents by marital
status and employment status. The tables for the married
respondents are first, followed by the tables for all single
(i.e., non-married) respondents, then tables for separated,
divorced, widowed and never-married respondents separately,
in that order. There are 4 tables for each marital status.
The first is for all respondents in that marital status.

The following 3 tables are for those working fulltime, work-

ing parttime and not working, in that order.

208

209

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NN®.N@H me.H WN0.0 mO©.O :NH.m ON®.H© H®0.Nm mom.bw HGJOB
2.2mm HRH amino mama mm: acme. . ASH. 83: mamrwwwm
. . . . . . . . assumHo can
wNH QH OHO O ‘ omo 0 NW0 0 0:: O mwm H mmm N MHm 2H COHHdhdmwhm Ham:
. . . . . . . . moomcopcfimz
NNQ Hm mmH O mmo O moo O mwb O wmw J NPm m mm: mm HGOHmhnm
mom.® HO0.0 MN0.0 NH0.0 :OH.O Nm®.H HO>.H 0mm.: mCfiQQOSW
. . . . . . . . coHuHmHsoo<
mwm ON 000 0 WHO 0 mmo O :00 O wmw a: omm w Nmm wH UEOUCH
.. oceans:
Hence muonamHmz meamHua mass :H mm>HauHmm Huxmv amueHHao guano: ence
u z mmszkmflm 2m<8

 

 

2mm: mam

wmmmeoz QHHmm<2 mom mMDom moz<2mommmm xm¢8 z<m2

mH Ham<9

 

210

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eoH.eoH oom.H mmH.H one.o goe.s mom.Ho meH.om oeo.ew Houoe
. . . . . . . . 0850 UHHSO
.13 am oom H moo o one. o a: m HE A Hmo o oom oH sonata
ooo.oH ooo.o HeH.o ooo o smo.o mHe.H one.m on.oH oooomHo coo
cOHHmanMHm Hem:

. . . . . . . . monocouoHoz
mew om ooo o ooo o ooo o moH H mm» : moo : one mH HaoHoxao
mam.e ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo o ome.H ome.H o:o.: onoooom

c d
Heo.oo ooo.o oeo.o ooo.o ooo o Noe.me o:o.mH HAH.om oHaHMMmoHM
Haaoe ouooomHmz moomHoo asaouoH mo>HpoHoe owwmmwo oouoHHeo noose: Home
H: u z mmzmoamma em<e

 

 

ME mam
HZHB Ada wan—”vac? was: 8“ng mom mmDom Hogommmm Mme? Em:

ma mama;

 

211

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«Hm.omH Hse.o mme.o eHm.o ooo.o mHe.om :oo.oH mmm.me Hopes
. . . . . . . . undo cause
as: am woe o HHo o :Hm o oom H mom oH «mm H oem oH suoerm
. . . . . . . . Ascomdo ooo
oem oH ooo o ooo o ooo o AH: o as: H oHo H mew mH ooHooooouua Home
. . . . . . . . mocmcoucumz
o»: mm ooo o HHH o ooo o How o ooo m omo m ooe mm HooHoHam
omm.o moo.o ooo o ooo o mHo.o ego.H mem.m eoo.: onoooom
. . . . . . . . :oHoHuHooo<
mew mo ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o omm we on o :oH mH maoooH
Haves muonamHoz moooHua ozoouoH mo>Huonm owwmmw: omuoHHeo posse: Home
om u z mozmoemmo ewes

 

 

Mam: mam

MZHB Bm<m ozHMmo3 mmmmaoz QmHmm<2 mom mmbom moz<zm0hmmm umde z<m2

NH mqm<8

 

212

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eHo.omH oom.H MHo.o omo.H esm.m sme.mo mmo.>H omo.He Hence
. . . . . . . . undo odfioo
oom om ooo o do o at. o oom H Ha a mom .1 omo Hm tomato
. . . . . . . . marmoao one
new om moo o oHo o ooo o eeH o eeo H mom H we» AH ooHoosoooao Ham:
. H . mo.o m .o NH .o omo.m mmm. H . moooooaoHaz
we: mm a m o o o o e m o H em Hoonkno
eoo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o mmN.o poo.H ooH.H mem.m moHoooem
. . . . . . . . ooHuHoHoooe
mo: Hm ooo o ooo o emH o mmm o ooe ms ooo e mam o oaoooH
Hence osoneoHoz moooHua oonIoH oo>HoaHmm owmumw: oouoHHso noose: Home
Hm u z mmzmoammi em<e

 

 

amm: mmm

Oszmoz 902 mmmmeoz QmHmm<z mom mmaom moz<zm0hmmm Mm¢8 z<m2

ma mum<e

 

213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo.oHH mom.o mom.e mmo.o mmm.m omo.m ooo.oH wHo.Hm Hoaoe
. . . . . . . . memo pawno
pom mm eoH o ooH m omo o ago a emm H :Hm o gem Hm spasHpm
oom.eH oeH.o osm o moo.o oem.o oso.o ooo.o :eo.HH oooooHo ooo
coHpmHmm0hm How:
m.Hm m.o oe..o ooo.o eH .o oo.o emm. mm.mH moooooooHaz
om a H. .. o .. .. H8331
mom.m ooo.o eeH.o ooo o moo.o Hmo.o mme.o mom.e moHoooem
o
oem.mm ooo.o oeo.o ooo o mom.o ooo.o mem.m mmm.mm :oHuHMwwomm
oceans:
Hopes ouopawHoz moooHse msoauoH oo>HpoHom Anxmo omooHHeo yahoo: ence
n z mezmoammo em<e

 

 

xmm: mam

mmmmeoz NaoZHm mom mmzom moz<2mommmm xm<B z<m2

ma mam<9

 

0 AN mwhmm <.He

 

214

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hem.mHH gem.o mom.m ooo.o Hoo.m som.m wom.Hm mmH.eo Hoses
ooo.om ooo.o ome.H m:o.o ooo.o ms:.H Hom.o Hoo.eH mpamgmwwuw
oom.mH ooo.o mmH.o ooo.o ooo.o oHo.o ooo.o moo.o :oHaommmwmonmw“
HoH.mH oma.o Hme.o ooo.o ooo.o HoH o poo.: mHH.mH moomuwwmmmm
Hmm.m ooo.o mwo.o ooo.o Hwo.o moo.o mmw.o HmH.: wcwoooom
ooo.e: ooo o :oH.o ooo.o ooo.o on.o Hoe.s moo.H: :oHuHMwwwwm

Hosea muonamHmz ooooHuo osoouoH um>Hponm onmmmwe omuoHHao omega: Home

mo ".2 mmzmoemeo em<e

 

 

2mm; mmm
MZHB JAE ozHMmOS maniac: Eosz mom $50: mogommmm v5.56 23m:

0 N flamed.

 

215

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omN.ooH Hmo.o ooo.o ooo.o moo.: ooo.o meo.oH mNo.:e Hopes
0H6
omN.em Hmo.o ooo.m ooo.o ooo.N ooo.o moo.e eoo.mN wawwwmm
. . . . . . . . escapao one
omo NH ooo o one o ooo o moo o ooo o omo H NoH oH ooHponaooai Ham:
. N .o a» .H ooo.o m o.H ooo.o H.m m m.eH oooaoouoHoz
moo m ooo o o oo o H8331
eHm.o ooo.o NNH.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o Hoo.o oms.m onoooem
. . . . . . . . cofiuwmfiooo<
How oN ooo o moo H ooo o ooo o ooH o mom e Poo oH msoocH
oceans:
Hopes muonomHoz ooooHue ozoonoH mo>HuoHom Annoy :oaoHHzo posse: zoos
oH u z mmzeoammm ewes

 

 

mam: mam

HZHB Bmdm ozHMmOS mmmmeoz maqum mom mmDom moz<zmommmm Mm<B admz

Hm mqm<e

 

216

 

'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.1.32 HNo .H mmo .o ooo .o NNo . .. NNm .N No .mH Re . 2. H38.
. . . . . . . . memo oHHoo
Pmm o: mmH o mmo m 000 o mbm H mam H mm: a new Hm hthHhm
. . . . . . . . mocooHo one
hHm om mac 0 map o 000 0 NH: o PmH o mmm a mom NH :oHumhmmohm Hoe:
. . . . . . . . 85:6...ng
now Pm map 0 mmm H 000 o mhm o 000 o m:H m mmH mm Hmonhnm
mm>.m mmH.o Hem.o ooo.o wwH.o moo.o omm.o H~>.: mchnonm
. . . . . . . . 831.332
mom OH 000 0 wow H 000 0 New H New 0 New m :mm o oaoocH
oceans:
Hence ouooomHmz mocmfiue msooncH mo>HpaHmm Annoy couoHHoo porno: game
a z mammommmm um<e

 

 

ummz mam

UZmeoz Roz mmmmaoz mqosz mom mmDo: moz<zm0hmmm ¥m<e z<w2

mm HAQ<B

 

217

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooH.HoH Hem.H moN.m ooo.o :mN.m omo.m ANN.eH NmN.me Hosea
. . . . . . . . 030 UHHSU
moo em me o oo: N ooo o omN N moo N mom a MNm NN egongm
. . . . . . . . moommHo 6cm
mmo NH meN o omH o ooo o :mN o MNo o NoH N HHH o :oHaouodoom Ham:
m.HN N .o H .o ooo o Hom.o m o.o ooo.m mNm.mH ooooomaoHoz
..o oo .. o .. H8351
Hee.e ooo.o ooo.o ooo o omH.o HHH.o mHm.o ome.m onoooem
. . . . . . . . ooHonHooo<
oNo mN ooo o meo o ooo o ooo o Noe o oom N NNm NN msoooH
oceans:
Hopes muonamHoz ooooHpe ouoouoH uo>HpoHom Anxmo :oHoHHno porno: Home
NN u z mmzmoamoo ewes

 

MEN: mam

mammeoz Qme<m¢mmm mom mmbom moz<2mommmm ¥m<e zamz

mm mqm<9

 

 

218

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmm.mHH mam.o mNH.m ooo.o mmm.H wam.m m:m.:m PH:.>~ Hmuoa
. . . . . . . . . mhdo GHHQO
moo :: 0mm 0 New m ooo o mam H Hmo a com mH mam om humsHhm
Hee.oH mmm.o ooN.o ooo.o mHm.o Neo.o meN.H ooo.o oooooHo ooo
coHomHommhm Hem:
. . . . . . . . mocmcmucHoz

PH N m H
pm: ooo o mmH H ooo o ooo 0 mac 0 co m :o o. Hmonhnm
>H¢.: ooo.o mmH.o 000.0 000.0 emH.o mem.o mmo.: mcHoooow
coHaHmHooo<
mH~.mm 000.0 000.0 ooo.o ooo.o mzm.o PH:.o om>.:m meoocH

oceans:
Hmuoe muooomHoz mocoHHm msmqtcH mo>HpeHom Anamv copoHHno smoeoz Home
NH u z mmzmommmm xm<e

 

 

2mm: mam

QZHB Adah UZmeoz mmmmeoz Qme<m<mmm mom mmbom moz<zmommmm Mm<B zamz

.zN oom<e

 

219

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omN.oe ooo.o ome.N ooo.o mNo.o omA.H ooo.N mNH.Ho Hence

one.oN ooo.o. omN.N ooo.o ooo.» omN.H ooo o omN.oH mono oHHao

home—Hum

oom.o ooo.o omN.o ooo.o mNH.o ooo.o mem.o one.» osoooHo ooo

coHumHogmhm How:

mNo.mH ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o oom.H ooo.o mNo.H oom.NH moaoaouaHoz

HaOHmeao

mNo.m ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o mNo.m onoooem

. . . . . . . . ooHpHmHooo<

one oH ooo o omN o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo oH oaoooH

Haves uaooemHoz ooooHuo maaouoH ao>HpuHmm ommmmwe omuoHHao noose: some
n z emzmoemmm em<e

 

 

xmmz mam
QZHE Bm<m UZH¥m03 mmmmeoz Qm9<m<mmm mom mmbom moz<2mommmm ¥m<B z<w2

mm qu<e

 

220

 

oNH.oo

om>.m

000.0

000.0

mwo.:

mzm.mH

ooo.N»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oHH.N Hopes

. . . . . . . . moon oHHro

Hmm Nm poo o ooo o ooo o mmm o ooo N ooo o eoo oN soosHHm

oHo.oH mmm.o ooo.o ooo.o mmm.o ooo o ooo.: ooN.NH osoooHo ooo

:oHpmHomoum Hem:

ooo.mm ooo.N ooo.o ooo.o eoH.H ooo.o mmo.o ooo.oN oooooopoHo:

Hoonhom

Nmo.N omN.o ooo.o ooo.o moo.o moo o moo.o mmo.H moHooonm

. . . . . . . . ooHoHoHsoo<

on HH ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o mmm H mmm o ooo H msoooH

Hopes oHonanmz ooooHHo osaouoH oo>HooHom omwmmw: omHoHHeo noose: Home
n z mmzmoammo em<e

 

 

2mm3 mam

oszmoz Boz mmmmeoz ame<m<mmm mom mmDO: moz<2mommmm xm<9 z<m2

om mom<e

 

221

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oHo.NHH ooo.o moo.N moo.o HHo.m ooo.N eNH.NN :Hm.No Hoooe
. . . . . . . . memo oHHoo
Na. Hm moo o mom H To o moo H ooo H No l. ooo NH abate
. H . . . . . . moomoHo ooo
eNm HH ooo o ooN o ooo o oHN o oHo o ooo N ooo oH ooHomHoomHo Home
ooo.HN mmo.o Noe.o ooo.o NHm.o omH.o Neo.s HNo.HH ooooompoHoz
H8355
HNo.o ooo.o oeo.o ooo.o ooo.o moo.o oHo.o ooo.o onoooam
. . . . . . . . ooHoHoHooo<
NNo o: ooo o HoN o ooo o No» o oNo o on o moH Nm maoooH
Hopes muonsoHoz ooooHoe osoHnoH oo>HHonm omwmmwe ooHoHHao tonne: Home
No u z emzmoemmo ewes

 

 

2mm: mam
mmmmeoz aflomo>HQ mom mmsom moz<2m0hmmm Mm<9 z<flz

hm mam<8

 

222

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oeo.oHH oHH.o Hem.H eeo.o HNm.N ooo.N meo.HN Hoo.mo Hosea
. . . . . . . . mono oHHno
ooo oN Hoo o ooo H eeo o oHe H eoo H oHN o oNH oH HoasHHm
ooo.NH ooo.o omH.o ooo.o moH.o mHo.o oom.m MHo.o azoomHo ooo
ooHpmHooohm How:
ooo.oH Hoo.o NoN.o ooo.o Nem.o HmN.o omm.m Hoo.NH ooooooHoHoz
HooHokam
Hoe.o ooo.o Hoo.o ooo.o oNH.o Hoo.o oHH.H oem.H moHoooem
. . . . . . . . :oHoHoHooo<
New om ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o mom o ooo mo oaoooH
Hosea oHooeoHoz ooooHHa ozuouoH oo>HHoHom ommmmw: omHoHHao Hosea: Home

om n z mmzmoommo eo<e

gem: moo

QZHB HHDE ozHMmo3 mmmmeoz nmomO>HQ mom mmaom moz<zmommmm Mm<B admz

mm mqm<9

 

223

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oom.HHH Heo.o ooo.NH ooo o Hem.H Nem.o one.oN eso.me Hopes
. . . . . . . . 0860 UHHSD
ooN em Heo o HHH H ooo o Heo H oNH o :H» o ooN oN HsosHHm
ooo.oH ooo.o oNH.H ooo.o Heo.o ooo.o oo>.H HHe.NH oaoaoHo ooo
coHomnonon Hem:
oe.NN ooo.o m H. ooo.o oN .o ooo.o ooo.m . H». H cocooouoHoz
o H .. .. .. .. H8331
one.o ooo.o ooN.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo o ooo.o ooo.o moHoooem
. . . . . . . . ooHoHoHooo<
oHo oN ooo o ooN N ooo o ooo o mHH o ooN o mmo oH osoooH
Hopes ouonamHmz ooooHHo osoouoH mm>HHoHom omwmmue :oHoHHao Hosea: zoos
u z mezeoemoo em<e

 

 

¥mfi3 mmm
mEHB Bm<m OZHKmoz mmmmeoz amomo>HQ mom mmDO: moz<ZMObmmm Mm<B z<m2

mm“ Handy

 

224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oeH.eo ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o meN.m Hmo.mH eNe.me Hopes
eNo.om ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.N Hoo.N oom.m omo.oN «poo oHHeo
homaHhm
ooo.oH ooo.o ooo.o ooo o eNe.o Hom.o omo.H mee.oH oncomHo ooo
ooHumHonnm Hoe:
. . . . . . . . 3:23:32

m AN oo o ooo o ooo o N H o oo o m oo MN
m: o w 0 20w : Hmonhnm
Nmo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o Hoo.o Noo.o ooo.o moHoooam
. . . . . . . . ooHoHonoo<
oHo o ooo o ooo o ooo o omo m AN» o NoH H ooo o osoooH
Hosea oHonnoHoz ooooHuo oonIoH oo>HooHom ouwmmwe oouoHHeo noose: Home

HH u z mmzmoemmm em<e

 

 

xmm: mmm

OZmeoz Boa mmmmsoz nmomo>HQ mom mmDOm moz<zmommmm xm<a zam:

om qu<a

 

225

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo.NNH ooH.N ooo.HH ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.oN ooo.oo Hoooe

ooo.Hm ooH.o ooo.» ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooN.H ooo.oN whomHoHHoo

msHhm

ooH.NN ooo.o ooo.H ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooH-o ooo.NH osoooHo ooo

coHaohmmmum How:

ooo.em ooo.N ooo.o ooo.o ooo o ooo.o ooo.» ooo.mN oooooupoHoz

HooHoHao

ooo.HH ooo.o ooo.H ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.N ooN.o moHoooem

coHuHmHooo<

ooo.oN ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo NH «soooH
505

Hoooe ouonaoHoz ooooHHa osmouoH oo>HpoHom oHumuoe ooHoHHso posse: sous

u z mmzmoammo em<e

 

 

xmm3 mmm

mmmmaoz QMSOQH3 mom mmao: moz<zmommmm Mm¢9 zamz

H m was;

 

226

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo.oHH ooo.oH ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo o ooo.oH ooo.oo Hoooe

ooo.» ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.H mono oHHao

hHmEHhm

ooo.oH ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.m ooo.» osoomHo ooo

coHpmummoum Hem:

ooo.o: ooo oH ooo.o ooo o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.H ooo.Nm oooooopoHoz

Hogans

ooo.mH ooo.o ooo o ooo.o ooo o ooo.o ooo.m ooo.oH moHoooem

. . . . . . . . ooHoHoHooo<

ooo o: ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o: osoooH

Hopes oooneoHoz ooooHHo osoonoH oo>HpoHom ommmmw: ooHoHHno noose: Howe
u z eezeoamoo ewes

 

 

Mam: mam

WEHB Adam UZmeox mmmmaoz QHBOQHz mom mmbom moz<2m0hmwm Kmdfi z<fl2

mm mam<9

 

227

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooo.HoH ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.oH ooo.Ho Hopes
. . . . . . . . osao oHHno
ooo e ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo e HoosHHo
ooo.NH ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.m ooo.oH asoooHo ooo
:oHpoquohm How:
. . . .. . . . . mocmcouch:
o ooo ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo m ooo mm
ooo om ooo o HoOHoerm
ooo.oN ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo o ooo o ooo oH ooo.oH ooHoooom
co m o
ooo.oN ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.oN HuHohMomm
gm:
Hosea oHopamHoz ooooHso ozaouoH oo>HooHom oxumwoe ooHoHHno rogue: Haas
n z mazeoemmo ewes

 

 

MZHE Bm<m quMmO3 mmwmaoz

mm wam<e

SHHS mwm
QHSOQHZ mom mmaom Quadzmommmm Mm<9 z<m2

 

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HoH.omH eoH.o Hmm.mN ooo o ooo.o ooo o mmm.Hm mmm.Ne Hosea
. . . . . . . . onoo oHHno
Hoo o: eoH o eoo HH ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo H Poo oN sooaHHo
. . . . . . . . moomoHo one
eoo AN ooo o ooo H ooo o ooo o ooo o poo H mmm HN ooHHoHoooHo Home
ooo.mm ooo.o mmm.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo o mmm.o ooo.oH ooooooaoHoz
HoonHeo
ooo.H ooo.o eoo.H ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o mmm.o ooHooooo
. . . . . . . . ooHoHoHooo<
mmm mH ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o mmm mH ooo o oaoooH
Hosea ouopooHoz ooooHHa osoouoH oo>Hoonm owmmmw: ooHoHHao noose: Home
a z emzmoomoo eo<a

 

 

2mm3 mmm

UZHMmOZ Boz mmmmaoz QH3OQH3 mom mmDOm moz<2m0hmmm Mm¢9 z<fi2

Hm moose

 

229

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AHH.NHH Hoo.o mAm.A oNo.o AHo.H ooo.o ooN.NH ooo.oo Hence
. . . . . . . . undo oHHoo
New om ooo o ooo m ooo o mo: m ooo o HoN N oNo AN AaosHoa
. . . . . . . . mocmmHo ooo
vo mH Aoo o omo o oNo o NHo o ooo o mmo H AoH NH ooHHoHaomHo Ham:
HHH.oH HHH.o o o.o ooo.o mm.o ooo.o mm .m NNN. H monocouoHo:
o o o H HooHoAHN
Hmm.e moo.o NNN.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o AHo.m waHaooem
. . . . . . . . ooHpHoHooo<
ooo om ooo o ooo N ooo o ooo o ooo o :2: H HNo oN osoooH
. oedema:
Hoaoe ouonemHoz ooomHHe osoHIoH oo>HuoHom Huxmo :mHoHHeo Horse: Home
oH u z mmzmoemoo em<e

 

 

Mmm3 mam
mmmmecz QmHmmdz mm>mz mom mmbom moz<2m0hmmm Mm<9 z<m2

mm mqm<9

 

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HoH.moH ooo.H oNA.m ooo.o oom.o ooo.o Hmo.A ooH.mo Hoaoe

omo.oN ooo.o ooH.N ooo.o NMH.H ooo.o ooo.H ooo.AH «you oHHeo

hsmsHam

vo.mH ooN.H ooo.o ooo.o on.o ooo o ooo.H ooA.o osoooHo ooo

:oHumHomon How:

ooH.mH ooN.o mNN.o ooo.o ooN.o ooo.o on.H ooo.oH voodoouoHo:

HooHerm

ooH.N ooo.o ooH.o ooo o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.N moHoooao

. . . . . . . . ooHoHoHooo<

ooo AH ooo o ooN H ooo o ooo o ooo o oo: N oom HH osoooH

Hones moonsoHoz ooooHHo oonuoH oo>HHoHom owwmmwe omHoHHeo goose: Home
2 u. z gamma ewes

 

 

ZEN: mam
mEHB Adah 02H¥m03 mmmmsoz QmHmm<2 mm>mz mom wmsom moz<2mommmm Mm<e z<m2

mm figm<8

 

231

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ooA.oNH ooo.o ooN.N ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooN.om ooN.oo Hopes

moo.NH ooo.o ooo.H ooo.o ooo.m ooo.o ooN.o mmm.Hm «new oHHeo

HHEHHA

ooo HH ooo.o ooN.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo o oom.m ooN.A oooooHo.ooo

coHpmHoowhm Hem:

ooA.Am ooo.o ooN.o ooo.o ooo.N ooo.o ooN.NH ooN.mN cocoooooHoz

HooHvoo

oAm.N ooo.o ooN.o ooo.o ooo o ooo.o ooN.o vo.H moHoooem

. . . . . . . . ooHoHoHooo<

ooo om ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo HH ooo HN osoooH

Hopes ouonnoHoz ooooHHA ozaouoH mo>HoaHom owmmmuz ooHoHHao tonne: Home
u z mmzeoemmo ewes

 

 

xmm3 mam
mEHB Bm<m oszmoz mmwmeoz QHHmm<2 mm>mz mom mmDO: moz<2m0hmmm xm<B 24m:

rm mam<fi

 

232

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NHo.oHH mAm.o «No.HN ooo.o ooo.N ooo.o ooo.o NHm.mo Hopes
ooo.om ooo.o ooo.A ooo.o ooN.N ooo.o ooo.o ooN.AH msomswwwmm
omA.mN ooo.o ooo.N ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o ooN.MN oooomHo ooo
coHposmmosm How:
oAm.mH ooo.o omA.H ooo o ooo.o ooo.o ooo.o mNo.mH cocooouoHo:
HooHosao
mAm.o oAm.o oAm.o ooo.o ooN.o ooo.o ooo.o oAm.o moHsoonm
. . . . . ooHuHmHsoo<
NHo.HH ooo.o ooo.oH ooo o ooo o ooo o ooo o NHo H osoooH
Hopes osooaoHoz moooHHa ozoouoH oo>HHone owwmmwe ooHoHHao goose: eons

H u z eezeosems ewes

ems: ems

OZHmmoz Boz mmmmBOE QmHmm<2 mm>mz mom mmbom moz<zm0hmmm xm<B zamz

mm mqm<9

 

APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND MATERIALS

This appendix contains the Family Work Survey in-

struments and materials in the following order:

1.
2.

Interviewer Questionnaire

Field Test Feedback Form

Screening Record Form

Screening Interview

a. For married and single respondents
b. For single respondents only
Letter of Introduction

Informed Consent Form

Family Work Interview

a. Cover sheet

b. Interview

Income Card

Performance Worksheet

Interview Record Form

Reinterview Form

Non-Respondent Interview
Non-Respondent Data Collection Forms

Call-Back Record Form

233

2234

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

wmusoaowor mm-mm-w:

Faxxgx WORK STUD!

IRTEEVIEWER QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME
ADDRESS

 

 

 

TELEHONE N UMBER

 

I estimate that each interviewer will work about one-hundred
hours. The work will be very intensive at times.

Can you work at least forty hours a week during all of April
and May, 1979?
Yes

No
Much of the work will be done evenings and weekends.

Can you work weekdays, weekday evenings and weekends?

Yes
10

This study will require about sixty hours of telephone screening
by each interviewer.

Do you have a telephone in a quiet place, which you can use
for eight hours a day?

Yes

V
..O
-

Each interviewer will conduct about forty face-to-face interviews,
at a time and place convenient to the respondent.

Do you have an automobile you can use when you want to, as much
as thirty hours a week? -

Yes

Ho

235

Please describe any interviewing or survey research experience
you may have:

 

 

 

 

Additional information?

 

 

 

 

Blease answer a few questions for use in the preliminary
statistical data analysis:

what was your age on your last birthday?

‘n‘nat is your present marital status?

married. husband present
married, husband absent
separated

divorced

widowed

never married

 

 

 

 

 

 

are you a Black person? Yes

Are you a member or any other minority group? Yes

 

No

If yes. which?
Are you the female head of your household? Yes
No

Do you have any children under 18 living with
you for whom you are responsible? Yes
no

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

”WUWMY MW‘W‘M

FAMILY WORK STUDY

FIELD TEST FEEDEAJK

 

INTERVIEfiER
SGREELIRG IKTERVIEW FAEILX WORK INTERVIEW

BLESSE 5S3 TH EESEOLDERT T0 ahShER THE FOLLONIN

E
QUESTIOES AFTER EACH FIELD TEE OE EI’CT STUDY

1. We are currently evaluating our procedures and ouestionnaires.
Would you please take two more minutes to tell us what you thought
of them?

"7‘ 30

IE LO: ‘2:

Ln

Thank you for taking part in our study, then. Goodbye.

IF YES, 4S3:
2. Did you find this interview very interesting, interesting,
uninteresting, very uninteresting or neither interesting nor
uninteresting?

YER! ILTEEESTILG I I I I I I VEEI UKINTEEEST KG
VI I R uI YUI

3. Did you find any of the questions confusing?

YES 20

237

IF YES, ASK:
4. Which? why?

 

5. Did you have any trouble answering any questions?
___¥ES .___uo

IF YES, aSK:

6. Which? Why?

7. Did you feel that any questions were (ASK wITH PAUSE)

 

unfair? or too personal?
UNFIIR T00 PEESOLAL

IF YES, ASK:
8. Which questions were (ASK WITH PAUSE) unfair? too personal?

11h y ?

 

 

 

9. Did any questions make you feel angry or sad?
YES KO

IF 22s, sex:
10. Which? Why?

 

ll. Do you have any suggestions about how we could improve

or interview procedures or questionnaire?

 

 

 

SAY:

Thank you very much for your help. Goodbye.

238

PLEASE aKSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIOKS YOURSELF AFTER

EACH FIELD TEST OR PILOT STUDY IETERVIEW:
12. How much trouble did the respondent have in satisfactorally
completing this interview?

COULDN'T
coasters a LOT sons LITTLE sons

13. What questions, if any, seemed to cause the respondent

trouble?

 

 

14. What questions, if any, was the respondent unwilling to

answer?

 

 

l5. Hhat questions, if any, angered or saddened the respondent?

 

 

l6. what questions, if any, did the respondent find silly or

ridiculous?

 

 

 

PLEASE ANSWER AS KAKY OF THE FOLLOVING QUESTIOiE n5 aPPLY
FOR YOURSELF:
17. How easy or difficult was the screening record form to use?

VERY EASY I pI I I I I VEEI DIFFICJLT
V E D VD

2359

18. How could the screening record form be improved to correct

it or make it easier to use?

 

 

 

19. How easy or difficult was the screening interview to use?

V23! 3352 I I I Z I I VERY DIFFICULT
‘4‘. a N D D

20. Which questions, if any, did you find awkward or difficult
to ask? why?

 

 

 

El. How could the screening interview be improved to correct

it or make it easier to use?

 

 

 

22. How easy or difficult were the screening procedures to use?
VERY 333! g g g ; I ; VERY DIFFICULT
Va 3 N D VD

23. what procedures, if any, were awkward or difficult to

perform? why?

 

 

 

240

24. How could the screening procedures be improved upon?

 

 

 

25. Sow long did the screening interview take?
MINUTES

 

26. How easy or difficult was the Family Work Interview to use?
VERY ESSY L I I I I I VERY DIEEICULT
VA 2 N D ID

27. Which questions, if any, did you find awkward or difficult

to ask? 'u‘hy?

 

 

 

In

8. How could the Family Work Interview be improved to correct

it or make it easier to use?

 

 

 

29. How easy or difficult were the face-to-face interview
procedures to use?

VERY EESI ' ' ’ 7232 DIFFICJLT
Va a h D

30. what procedures, if any, were awkward or difficult to

perform? why?

 

 

 

241

31. How could the face-to-face interView procedures be improved

upon?

 

 

 

PAGE man
30 ANS
CR SUSY

it

HER

C
03 BUSY

mu.

.‘.

DZEARTMENT OE SOGIOLOGI
N0

i
10

2 4 2
'IEG assess some

SC
50 ALSWER

UR BUSY

ti

XXXXXXXXXX
9

.SITZ

2F

2: CT I}.

-~ ' SERVICE

TATE UNIV
as

C
U

"EOEE

NUMBEE

PKEILY NOE! STUDY
INTERVIEEER xxxxxx x.

MICHIGAN

T

*_uo.wenae.»w we as.» we “e.gs we 2*.oa as wa.e.eenus_ww we as..a e

{fiffifiwwfiwfiwfi2wwiwfifififirxfiiiifilwfifi”aw..."wwwuwiriwfiewfi

tfifififiivfiuwiw.w.w*fiw.w.a..w*.wwwiiqv*i*sw.w.w.w.w.w.w*lw.w*.w.w.ww

“fibfitfiiqwfiwwwwwwwfiwwfiiwwuwfl.w.wuwv.w*.wfi.w.w.w.w.w.u9new?»

vi
9
.e
4-

* w.ua s.wa"e.an.e e.ee w.ww t .le u w a a w..% wa_s we sang e}.e a.

243

.n. 2 co . 0...:
units". . Sail
ne‘a.u:oaoea s-:

so» eon: so. so. Bu.s oc—».~ seas-.mu use o.o; :9» ea

‘32.:59 d .— 3.63:0

.m— on 33 ind—339 d—

..333 3.5:... 2:. a. 3:;

«2:33 . oz!

neceaosz use» :.Ss tan... 9:. oe.uuee so. use .

.12. ca . 9.11

25.2.3 . 3a..--
uenaeea sesame as: can. a.—

mon sq ass scan o. e:o_aoe:: no e.a:ou e so. see - he:

.s...oc ease.— nean...‘ 5.23 do! no.3 33.. cacao Iv...- .: :-
u:.a—ea on. .¢:.~ced =¢ zones .0 nee-3e e n¢.¢939:co

ea...) 4.2.3.2.: 330 semis:- 53 9:33 I.-

 

.. 0.3— .330:
.xca...u.5=:4dh a.” 0.330 533.331 dd-hahnz 3:)

.3 on. o: . o:

.0- a be is:

.2 2. a: . 23.. Sal

.n 3. o: . a: .3»!
.3233 . 3.--:

n39.252- ..:e~ be as... ease- en. .3... ausae - he: .

.levcea do enemas: Guano-o ea.es

:.3 .353: tun—3. s: a; so: aundd :6 a» b-

.m .239 sane. users-e .32: Sen no.3 sea «some l2... .2..-

u...=e. ec- Jeaecl a. cases he :33 e Osaaeaoaee
3.... 4:32.25 33. 33.3... so. 9:23 s.-
.. - o. :6. 6:...

 

. a: .3 ~33;

.83. 233.. 2:533 .58 .8
5.38 3233 a. 5..-. use a. .s. I... use .3 3:.

..-3e.... 93.... 2: eeeg - :93. I.-

.n :3 .22.... 32.33 a an 3.3.. 3...—

ud-u—haua- U.S.-ad“ 8.3 gxux< a... a. flab .-

 

-o. 1| III 33 .33
a...» - =3
-irI--5:| e38... .833:

 

 

 

 

~ I? 5.: .33:

Id naluhau 03—368

52:. ‘3. =2:-

oi . 5.3, , g. c an:

0'! ' .!'§'

 

4 1.. .Io,.,!!.l.|u :|.i|lv'lilhn.! III;I.II-1|O- all,

b:nss>z= lbs-b I¢°.-.U:¢

244

IIO,VV nu Illt’l' Ilnl’l.lll.'|l

 

I'IIIIIIIIII I Il.|l|‘|’..llnll

 

I IIIIIIIIIIIV.IIOIIIDII- I‘Ii

 

1.: I.‘

II - i . irl ill: iloiulililnlt $1- iamuflfimw .33 rammed.—

I III 0.:-III I'li‘gs

 

'. 150.c'nIIl'lnls

3.3
£32.00 .22. use. no. mass as: .5. 9.2:.

.e—aeee has: has 3:. a: 3.3.0.. 9.2.3.5.. .26» .m—

 

IIII'II 'IIIIOI III:

 

a
.3...— 35. .3 .u: a. .83 .33 2 as: 983..
.enaoooo .833 n:- 305 1.3.6. .0-

 

 

33 .349
9.2. .3... =3 3 seen :3 3 :3 seem e on 3.6.. :23 .n-

 

I|-IIAIIIII

a
.a. Pd: 52.3
5:... 2.2. 3.: .333 3:8 5.2:: :53 2 81..
a: as: .33 3.23:: a... use. Pate—323.. 33.2.:

€3.53
73". on: . 3.3

a. so» use: 0. gethe- noo- :.- .Su:e a...» so. use..— .2

 

 

1 .I a. gene eee: :-
a a. an ace... 3 ea... :2. e5.
«Irl—manurfimmrn

ue .- :3 see so» Jessa-ease

:6 e922? 3 ea!- oeu 23 a: eeco 3.5... u....:eeoe : .3

 

. Se...

some: use» 0:... - he: .0—

 

I'I'I! II?! lli'luvlnIl.l-II

 

ass-bod :3

n00.5flfldul ---..-!I

III III

‘0‘..-

25- does 0.- el on: men 3.6.. :2... 9.3 .o

 

Hz:

'iil‘ll

Inca

.535 he.

0!: Q... nae. 2.02-0.30. Jean-bee 23 on 9.30: a...) .c

.233 a pain
Isa—neon . 3n---

peacoacuueoo

.26. as so. 3:53... ea el ae- o.o—see.- ea .3 3.5) .~.

3e»: .32: he eueeaee elce

5a.. 9: ~23 cos-3a! sea cacao one Jesse-Ease: o..-
eece-uu .23: 5:5 «some 0.353e- sc... 3 :2. 9.: e:
Jceeueaaee v.3 eaeo 9:6- 33:25: .22: :6... 29.-Li.-
eaZ seeds Oslo-:3... :.ea .ue-see 23 goose so.

:3 ea :.- .e-aeee geta- bae 3a. 3 3 32.33.. .25» .o

245

.m. on a:
Afifllawfliamflm
.mmflflmm .48.. a. 32.32...
s... .o as... 3...... a: u.

us.a.o=o:.uu a... can .osu. son 00;: so» ..u:.

so» .3... 9...»: a. .30.... 39.33.. n... 0.1. .2: :2: so» 3 .n

.n ~ 3... cc
dear—.30

2.532... :2: .3. .3... 9...: can cor-bun .0... a: .6. 0.3 .

. 04 On. a:
flaunt-39

.33

g a:

05.3:

.8033 a. 9.2.1... 06:... 0......

.53.... 53:. So a... 3.. can... .9: .6» .-

.230 one: anon-o.o .323 .03 ~23 no: .30" I23 .3.-
u..::u v..- .u...-c¢4 :— .30.... no her-.5 I 0:32.28.

5.933.... 33.. 90.5... .3. 9...... o.—

 

d. DI-
. II-

can
. II:

C

I

. a:

.0303 :3..- uao 3.: a:

:9. a. .30 2.: 3 383:3 an 03.6.. o 3.- 1-. n no: .A

.230 .33 ~33... .3»... :- .0... so.- aaoou 0:: .3;
9:33 a... .9233 .3 colon no not... a 3:02:39

3.: £332.25 33.. .2033: .3- 052... 0..

a a on.“ .0:08

.‘3- 530.5- 3-2 I: a

33.30 ado—:50 a- San lab .3 I... .3. a: .3 on:

63!... 93.... .5 as... u :93. I.-

.u... .52.... 32......- c 3 III.- 2.3

cans-haa- H833.— flfin 3808‘ Di gt I: h—

 

315.340 .

 

 

.uz iiizaddh :.u .345 Rafi-9:4.— Jd—hjhah 34:1 .

.c— Oh 09 a

.2 o.— 3 .
.o 3 2. .
.n on .5 .
3.3.8.. .

"32.3.5: .35- uo 0:3 0:3: 0.3 .3..- nsot. - a... .—

 

lznh :46

 

0. one. .0308

1'33 ugh

 

2...! u... .5

H.833: % W
23.. 5.51
a”. 3311!

an»

:8. . It!!! . i. u:

flflflmalw 33.23::
3:53.: 2:323

33. ’3) Suit

 

 

- P388); IFS—b 50.30.!

246

 

 

3533-3. mmmm mama“

D-I.I'I|l'..lllllll

 

 

 

 

a
£3.60: .32- .»..ou .3» goal A...» :0» 1:25

.33.:- uvaau .26 3.: a: c.5000 9.2.0.33. .25» .nq

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a
.35— 35. .3 .5: 2 .83 .38 2. as: 933..
.0393: .82.. u...- so- 3:96 .0—

 

83 .33
2:. 5:. :3 3 .2... z: 3 on: .8. n 3 3:2. :2... .2

I! ‘ P

glam
.3— l.l=d H433
:u—zx Aha: 3: Jun-.3 52.0 Fa—B-uuzw nacho O.— '01.:
92¢ 18:. .993 auu>¢uh8— a: I: OLI-aaaauz Gamma}:

”.3925
70-... . on: . 3.3

a. .6- 93“... 3 9:53 .33 :2 :.0... ha: :0» 8:16 .2

 

1|

.— 3.5. 003. a:

 

all?! 3 so can... 3 on: :2. 2G

:39... 2.2.3
. 1| a. on :3 so» .5. 3.33523.

.30 09.9.9 3 cu... :o- a... a: 0.3 :20... 0:23.20. u- .:

.0- 3h 97 3.3.! £3323 .d=IId=-gafl BI 39 d.- Od Uhlo 55

31:3 :2. 93 a. son :3 :.- =.:..-.....:. .33 he 25
Jfldflfimg
3.5.

 

salt: 5...: on... n as.

 

 

 

2833...:
7.3::—

 

‘0‘:

as: do: 3 on on: so» 3.8.. .52... 0.3 .

 

3.:

=3
.30.. he

 

on: can :3 cacao-23¢ goo—:10 .5 on :92. dog: .

.1 2 2. 2.
.2 3 on g. 22.—:80 . flail

a.o:¢.:¢.:oo

.3: an .6. sour-:3 92.. .3.- czaoooa on 3 3:0- .

7:33:53. sole: .2! no 23.
6:: .323 go 3.2.: 2.3
3:: a: no...- .0303.- .2. 2.3- .... {3333.169- 9..-
oocotu 43.3 .22: use... 0550!.- ..08. 3 soon on: on
Jen-91... 9..- ....u 935 3.2.3.8.. .305 2.3- 2.9:...»

an: .31... 9.2.3535 9...: .uotac 23 2.3. an»

:3 on «o.— .o-aII nor-:- 2... 3.: 3: 32.028.- .28» .

03‘

247

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
flusbaubwudfidfianlunls

Family Work Survey

 

this Is To Certify That

is employed as an interviewer by the Family Work
Survey. Michigen State University, during March,
April, May and June. L979.

She is authorized to conduct personal interviews.
using the Family work forms. during that time.

If you have any questions concerning these
netters. plesse call an at the number below.

Sincerely, - _ . ,
7":,",‘ /- '4: if: ‘. : z/j‘
mum 3. mm
Survey Director
353-6879

‘ .
’ I .‘ .v ’ c . 0 ' I"
'> ‘ Icy“. I- (‘1' F‘“ ’1‘
I . .’

I
‘1’ '—

x

l

Hyrne Reynolds
Survey Associate

669-5313
.- ~1f anti; v 31'- V‘.‘-‘-'~t\
Frederick 3. Heisenen
Professor
355-6647
7 rs _
t;g(<;ky )74,;;::Izcflt’6o«»1~+c_.z
). _

3/4 *1/77

ROSE am

0. I. ,M‘. ‘_
“w uric. ”a“,

2418

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

6.

MWcm-m

FAMILI WORK SURVE!

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

I have freely agreed to participate in a scientific survey
being conducted by Melvin S. Kalish, x. 5., under the
supervision of Professor Frederick 5. Waisanen, Michigan
State University.

the survey has been explained to me, and I understand the
explanation that has been siven and what my participation
will involve.

I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation
in the survey at any time without cost to :e.

I understand that the information I provide will be treated
in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous.

I understand that the results of the survey will be made
available to me at my request.

I understand that my participation in this survey does not
guarantee any beneficial results to me.

 

Signed

 

249

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

wmamr

- n?- .-
'.$‘I' $.11 '

r .
-h“

(a

3
I)

E

0
fi

ZNTS

WW'W'GIN

Fggg WORK III‘I‘ERVI EN

COVER SHEET

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEI: 31?: (MINUTES)

 

 

 

 

 

 

25C)

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

WWWW MW'MW'W

FAIIg WORK IN TERVIZW
INTEfiVIEWER NUMBER

RESPONDENT NUMBER

 

AFTER THE EESPORDENT SSS SIGNED THE IKFORMED CONSENT FORM.
AND IOU HAVE PUT IT SACK 23 YOUR FOLDER. 3&KE THE FOLLOWING
OPE} INC} REMARKS;

Thank you for agreeing to take part in this study. is I‘ve
said. we're studying how household tasks are done in different
families. I'll be asking you questions about your family and
friends. and about your everyday tasks.

I'd like to start by asking you some questions about yourself.

your family and household.

HOUSEH“ STING
ENTER RESPORDENT'S FIRST 3AME Of FISST LINE OF HOUSEHOLD LIST.

I. First, would you help me list all the people who live in your
household? that are their first names and their relationship

to you?

LIST ALL PERSONS LIVING IN THIS HOUSEHOLD. AND THEIR
RELITIOKSHI? TO THE RESTONDENT. IN THE HOUSEHOLD LIST.

 

251.

HOUSEHO LIST

 

 

 

 

l0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

so. 3135': amrzon- sax AGE anus. BELOL’. HEALTH azsxnmzx
KANE 58;; STATUS STATUS STATUS

F P gp F+ ? 2,1. n_43, i§fi§L_11§*

l 9.25201;an HQ

2 ‘z s

3 M F

A 43 F

St M ?

i H F

T M F

3 M FIL

3 z s- i

10 :4 3‘

ll i ‘ :~: F

12 i I :s '5'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Does anyone else live in your household now. such as
(asap WITH BAUEZS) another family? roomers or boarders?
domestic help? visitors or guests? Other friends or

relatives? Any infants or children we missed?

IF 25$. ASK.

What are their first names and their relationship to you?

3. Are there any other persons who stayed over in your home

during the last seven days?

2252

I? 223, ASK:
what are their first names and their relationship to you?

How many days were they staying with you?

RECORD THE NUMBER OF D535 STAIED OVER IN THE HOUSEHOLD LIST.

A. Are there any persons who usually live here, but who were

away during the last seven days?

I? 225. ASK:
What are their first nanes and their relationship to you?
how many of the last seven days were they away?

RECORD THE XUHBER OF DAYS AIAX IN THE HOUSEHOLD LIST.

 

\fl

0\

how I'd like to ask you some questions about the members
of your household.

FOR EACH PERSOR LISTED IN THE HOUSEHOLD LIST ASK THE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. AND RECORD TEE AKSWERS IN THE
HOUSEHOLD LIST.

MAE! THE SEX OF EACH PERSON IN THE HOUSEHOLD LIST. IF
IT IS ROT OSVIOUS FROM TSEIR RAEE ALD RELATIONSHIP TO
THE RESPONDENT. ASK:

Is (...) male or female?

What was your (...'s) see on your (his/her) last birthday?

7. Are you (Is ...) now attending or enrolled in school?

IF NOT. RECOED "N” (NOT IX SCSOOL) FOR EDUCATIONAL
STATUS ASD SKIP TO IO.

\bl

2513

3. Is that full-time or’pert-time?

9. In the last seven days how many days did you (...)

attend school?
RECORD "F" (FULL-TIRE) OR "P" (PART-TIME) FOR .
EDUCATIONAL STATUS. AND NOTE THE NUMBER OF DAYS
ATTENDING.

10. Are you (Is ...) presently employed? (EAUSE) Self-employed?
IF NOT, RECORD "3" (NOT ETLOYED) FOR EMPLODIEBT
STéTUS ALB SKIP TO 13.

ll. Is that more than full-time.£nll-time or part tine?

M

. In the last seven days how many days did you (...)
work?
ascosn "P+"(Moas mu: FULL-TIME). "F" (FULL-mas) on
"P" (BART-TIRE) FOR EMPLOZMENT STATUS, AND NOTE THE
NUMBER OF DAIS AT WORK.

1}. Do—you (Does ...) have any condition which limits the

amount or kind of work you can do?

IF YES. RECORD "D” (DISABILITY/HARDIOAP) FOR HEALTH.
14. Were you (was ...) too sick at any tine during the last
seven days to do the things (he/she) usually do(es)?

IF SOT. SKIP so 16.
15. How many of the last seven days were you (was ...)
that lick?
RECORD ”5' (SICK) FOR HEALTH. AID he?! THE NUMBER OF
tars SICK;-

2511

U]

POTENTIA SUPPORT

Now I'd like to ask you a few questions about people

outside of your household.

15. First. how many of your parents are living in Lansing NONE 0
ONE 1

and its suburbs? TWO 2
OTHER __

17. How many brothers and sisters over 18 do you have living

within the same area? NUMBER

18. how zany grown children do you have living away from~

home within the same area? NUMBER

19. how many grandparents. aunts. uncles and cousins over

15 do you have living within the same area? EUHBER
IF RESPOXDENT IS SEEARATED. ASK:

20. Does your husband live within the same area? YES 1

KO O

IF RESPONDEET IS DIVOROED, ASK:

21. Does your ex-husband live within the sane area? YES 1

HO O
IF RESPOXDERT IS NEVER-MARRIED. 531? TO 23.

22. How many (ex)parents-in-law do you have living within

the same area? UUXBER___

23. How many (ex-)brothers and sisters-in-law over 18

do you have living within the same area? SUMBEE___

24. How many other in-lawa over 18 do you have living

within the same area? NUEB£R___

25. How many people living'in Lansing and its suburbs

do yon-consider your friends? EUMBER

2255

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6
of your .
26. How many/neighbors do you consider friendly acquaintances?
NUMBER
27. What public and private community services do you know
of which could help you to support and take care of your fazily
and home?
I; 192 needed help, and were eligible:
25a. would you be willing to ask for financial help from:
(I? SEEARATSD) your huscand 233 1
Y 2
(IF DIVORCZD) your ex-huscand :33 1
NO 2
a relative 233 1
KO 2
an in-law 225 l
- so 2
a friend 225 1
KO 2
a neighbor 23$ 1
BO 2
a public agency :33 1
NO 2
a private agency 225 1
KO 2

I? AKSHER IS KO TO as! O? 732 ABOVE, ASK:
Why not?
THIGH? WE! SOT?

 

 

25GB

28b. Would you be willing to ask for other kinds of help from:

 

(IF SEPARATED) your husband

(IF DIVORCZD) your ex-husoand

a relative

an in-law

a neighbor

a public agency

a private agency

IF ALSHER IS 30 TO ANY OF THE ABOVE, ASK:

Why not?

 

WHICH? KHZ KOT?

 

29a. Would you be willing to go to xzsc (Unemployment) for

 

benefits?

 

IF SOT, ASK:

Why not?

 

 

29b. Would you be willing to ask for free Job or other services

 

from MESS (Unemployment)?
IF NOT, ASE:
Why not?

 

 

YES
NO

223
*1

‘2? c
.5 “b

AG

.0
H»
e

A

mu NH mu mw my

Nt“

[OH

to»:

2557

30a. Would you be willing to go to the Department of Social

 

Services for:

food stamps

medicaid

aid to dependent children (ADC)

paid day care

other financial aid

 

0'1

F ANSWER IS NO TO ANY OF THE ABOVE. ASK:
Why not?
TRISH? NEE NOT?

 

 

30b. Would you be willing to ask for free services such as

 

 

homemaking services from the Department of Social Services?

IF SOT, ASK:

fihy not?

 

 

I? was asssounenr rs sor“xassiso sun Livzso wise ass
accents! ears to 33.

N W

KO
ZES

NC

Nrd

V9:

-fi”

30

1ES

KO

YES
NO

NO" NH “’0‘

:<I<
0::
mrd

2258

31a. Would your husband be willing to ask for financial

 

 

help from :

 

a relative
an in-law
a friend
a neighbor
a public agency
a private agency
31h. Would your husband be willing to ash-for other kinds

o he from:

a relative

an in-law

a friend

a neighbor

a public agency
a private agency

IF ALSUEE IS 50 Tc Ah! OF THE ABOVE, ASK:
ihy not?
UHICH? KHZ NOT?

 

 

YES
KO

YES
NC
'NC

O-“

30

YES
KO

YES
R0

‘77::

NO

YES
SO

YES
30

rtfi

b.

50

V C
b an
‘0
‘0

v7:

NO

YES
vn
AOU

NH [OH

NH NH NH

N04

NH N04 N04 NO“ NO“

‘0?"

2553

32a. Would your husband be willing to go to MBSC (Unemployment)

 

for benefits?

 

Why not?

 

 

32b. would your husband be willing to ask for free 3ob or \
other services from $1236 (Unemployment)?

IF SOT. ASK:

 

Why not?

 

 

33a. Would your husband be willing to go to the Department
of Social Services ' for?

food stamps

medicaid

aid to dependent children (ADC)
paid day care

other financial aid

 

IF AK! ANSUER IS so, aSK:
Why not?
WHICH? WEI EOT?

 

 

33b. would your husband be willing to ask for free services

 

such as homemaking services from the Department of Social
Services ?
IF KOT, ASK:

Why not?

 

 

10

YES
NO

NH

YES 1
3 2

0‘!
O
'0.“ [00“ NH

N04

[Dr-0

Ox
°12
(”H

.-. e
s

260

TASK PMMNCE DATA

Now I'd like to ash you some questions about the time that
you and other people spent doing things for your family during
the lag; sever, gaze.

Here‘s a pencil 1nd a womeneet which zay help you
answer these questions.

HAKD WORKSHEIT TO RSSPOKDEE‘I‘. IF NECESSARY. mull:

mamas. USING A SAHPLS WORKS-122T.

Please try to answer these questions as accurately as
you can.

RDFAT FACE TASK PERFOMOE QUESTION FOR “II-IF.

RESPONDENT, HEB ORILDREN. HER (H-HIUSBAND.

smnvss. 125-LAWS. FRIENDS, AND NEIGHBORS.

34». How many hours, if any,. did you (...) spend during the
last seven days earning money. going to an agency or elsewhere
for money, filling out applications and forms for financial

aid, or doing anything else to provide money f9: you; family?

 
  

/

   
   

‘8‘- L13”- / i I

35. how many hours. if any, did you (...) spend shopping for

anything: groceries, clothes, furnishings, appliances, repairs.
haircuts or any other goods or services W?

 

261

1.2

36. How many hours, if any, did you (...) spend doing laundry,

mending, housecleaning,.straightening, yard, car and pet care.

and any repairs {9; 193: fagily?

   
   

          

chum /
AT HOME

.5 / Eli-Lao.

- jhbufis‘sisu /

37. how many hours. if any, did you (...) spend preparing deals

and snacks f9; 2gp: :agi;z and cleaning up afterward?

 

38..Eow zany hours. if any, did you (...) spend washing and

dressing your children, reading to-them. helping themawith their
and talking
homework, playing,with themr and providing baby care and medical

~38"?
I / / / /
5.1-.5“. v D 'I ‘ 5' ‘U ' s 5.7m" 4. :i: j... ' ”a. ‘.‘. "
AT 3m

39. How many hours, if any, did you (...) spend supervising,
watching or~baby-eitting your children?

  
       

/ In-uws

#0. Did you have to pay any of these people to do any of these
things for you and your family during the last seven days?

IF YES, ASK:

She? To do what?

 

 

262

4i. Do you cooperate with any people in.the same situation
as yourself to help each other out? IF SO, SKIP TO a3,

42. How zuch help would you say you get from these people in

doing the hinds of things we’ve been talking about? A lot of help.

saushelp..little help or no help at all? a lOT OF
5033

”Y:
O-“

KO REL? AT ALL

 

E:

I~ |~ t» I?

A}. Do you belong to an organization or group of persons in 328
your situation which exists for the purpose of mutual “o
assistance? IF to, $212 TO #5.
IF YES. ASK FOR THE GROUP'S “nal. I? 33!.
.433: -
a4. how such help would you say you get from this
organization or group in doing the kinds of things we've
been talking about? A lot of help. some help. little help.
or no help at all? A lOT OF ESL?
SOHE HELP
LITTLE HELP
. :O 82L? at ALL

The next series of questions concerns your fazily's use

of various services v a»

45. How many times during the last seven days did you have

‘a store, business or agency purchase or deliver,scmething to

you for an extra charge? (PAUSS) free of charge?

CHARGE: TIRES

..4
MI

MN

NH

)4 F F |.

FREE: TIRES

263

46. how many times did you arrange with a company, business
person or agency to do laundry, mending, housecleaning or
straightening, yard. car or pet care, or any repairs, for
a fee? (23853) free of charge?
CHARGE:
FREE:

#7. how many meals and snacks did you and any other member

of your family eat out at a restaurant..organization or agency.

pick up or have delivered. that you paid for? (PAUSE) or at
no cost to you?
RECORD 28E flUHBER OF I§DLELQQQL_§§;L§ RAID:
FREE:
#6. How many hours or day care. child care or baby-sitting
were performed for you by a hired business person, a day
care center. a business or agency for a charge? (PAUSE)
or free of charge?
CEAROE:
FREE:

COLLECT PERFORMANCE TORKSHEET

#9. Did anything at all happen last week that might have
affected the hours you or anyone else spent doing the things
we've been talking about?

It YES. ASK:

What?

 

 

 

 

1A
TIMES
TIRES
XEALS
XEALS
HOURS
HOURS

YES 1

NO 2

2€54

50. Do you receive financial assistance from:

 

 

(IF SEEAEATED) your huscand $35
(I? DIVORCED) your ex-huscand $35
a relative -ES
30
an in-lsw YES
. ..C
a. friend LfES
a neighbor E23
which: a puslic agency 2E3
O
which: a private agency 'IES
C
51. I: you didn't have to earn any :oney. if somehow you could
vhave enough noney to live on.without casing any sore. how :sny
hours a week. it any. would you wag; to work at a Job anyway?
SOUR
52. I: you didn't have to go shopping for anything. it
everything you needed could so delivered. and it doctors and
hairdressers. for example. nads houseoalls at no extra cost.
how many hours a week. it any. would you wag; to spend
shopping anyway? $0055

53. It you didn't have to do any aaintenance work in or around
your hone. that is. it all your laundry. sending. housecleaning.
straightening. yard. car and pet care. and any repairs could be
taken care or at the sane cost as it you did it yourself. how

nany hours a week. i: any. would you want to spend doing these

things anyway? 35:35

U1

.1

NI‘ lUr‘

I‘Ja‘ IOU-J No‘ “It"

lug-

IU 3‘

B
a-

265

5a. 1: you didn't have to prepare meals or snacks or clean up
after seals. if this could as taken care of at the sane cost
as i: you had done it yourself. how :any hours a week. i: any.

would you wagt to spend preparing :eals and cleaning up after

seals anyway? 50'

55. I: you didn't have to do any child care. it your children
could be washed. dressed. read to. helped with honeworu. and
played with. and it baby care and :edioal care could be taken

care or for you at no extra cost, how nany hours a week. if any

would you want to spend doing these things anyway? 56"

56. If you didn't have to supervise or watch your :hlldren.
if seasons could watch then for you tree 01 charge. how :sny
hours a week. i: any. would you want to watch then anyway? EC

we've been talking about how you got your housework done
and supported yoursel: last week. Now I'd like to ask you s
few questions about what you've done at special tlzss o: the
year.

IF :0 SEILD I: SCECGL. SKIP so 60.
57. First or all. please tell as what arrangements. it any,
you :sds for child care during the school's suzner vacation
last year? SIECLE AS 3&3! ALSUEES as APPLE.
332' PC FlTEER
EELnIZVE CAFE ‘CE
LEISHSCR 33529 FOR
F? 335 JARED FOE
boxKEi tSHCSL
aid-:25. 8.532
243:: “I SALE.
oEZLE trarED ALOLE
CIhEh

's

 

(specify)

\o (tr-d nun tr: .1 I.) o“

2656

58. What arrangements. if any. did you make for chil csre

.--qo -

during th last school vacation? .lntnn at fink! anemia: 35 APPLE.

JSILD TO RATHER
EELEIIVE JARED FCE
REIGHEOR OERED FCR
SHIELD CAREL FCE
EAID as! OARE
SEILD STAKES ALOXE

OTHER

 

(specify)

39. what srrangenents. if any. did you sake for child care last
ti: there was n school on s weekday? CIRCLE as has! aNSWERS AS 3

RELnTIVE CéEED EOE
NEIGHEOR CARES FCR
FRIEBO JARED 3C3

95:3 35! JAEE

thLE E.aZEE nLOhE
SZAYED ECKE 3383 305"

‘mn- -

baa.“ ‘

 

\speciiy)

do. What did you do aoout child care last tize (one or) your

child(rsn) was sick. 3 " is as! assess A5 arm.
asunvs sip: zcs.

SIaIED 303E 5303 £013
OTEER

 

(Specify)

61. What did you do acout child care last tine you were sick?

OIRGLE AS EEK! AKSkERS Ah APPLY. JEILD TO EATfiER
RELATIVE JaPED ECR
SEIGHSOE JARED E‘E
FRIELD «RED FOR

CIEEE

 

(speciryT
52. What did you do about child care last tine someone who
regularly watches your child(ren) wasn't sole to. for any reason?

CIR ‘LE of. PM! 55581-233 .552. .2211. 3811.13 TO 55:25.3
EELdIIVE OAEED FOE
LEIGHEOR GERED ECR
FRIEED liEED FCE
ZHZLD SIEIED nLOKE

OTEEE

 

\speciiy)

*0 ().u| pm m D‘

’u
'd
t'.

'J 0.”! l‘\nl I‘d i"

u: tau to H

0.0: Pu N H

17

n<

2657

Here now are a few questions about how you might manage

your time and money.

63. Do you use an appointment back or a calendar to schedule

YES
your tine in advance? NO
64. Do you plan your day in advance? OFTEN. ins

RAEELX. NO
65. Do you make up a shopping list before you go grocery

YES
shopping? NO
55. Do you 23KB up a budget to manage your finances? YES

30
57. Do you have a plan about how much time you will spend YES

as
on each of your hajor activities each week?

53. Do you schedule your errands so that you can do them 3E5

together when possible?

SATISFACTIONS

Now I would like to ask you some questions about how

satisfied you are with some aspects of your life.

69. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the state or

condition of your home? Very satisfied. pretty satisfied,

not too satisfied. not satisfied at all?

VET-Cf SATI SFI 7

PEETl SnTISEIED

SOT TCC SATISFIED
hGT EnTISFIED AT ALL

18

IUPJ

[OH NH [0&4 Ni"

IL)!J

\VJ

268

Imagine a scale running from zero to one hundred. Suppose
one hundred represents the perfect state or condition your
home could be in. and zero represents the worst possible state
or condition you can inagine your home being in.

70. How would you rate the present state or condition of

your home? RATING

71. How would you rate the best state or condition

you could ever hope your hone would es in? EATILG

72, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality.
appearance and taste of your fanily's heals? Very satisfied.
pretty satisfied. not too satisfied. or not satisfied at all?

VEEZ SATISFIED h

Jsing the scale again. suppose one hundred represents the
perfect heal. and zero represents the worst possible real you
can imagine.

3, How would you rate the typical seals your fanily eats

these days. 83I133

7a, How would you rate the best real you could ever

hope your family would eat? fiAIIlJ

2659

20
75. Jow satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your family
life - the amount of time you spend and the things you do with
your family? Very satisfied. pretty satisfied. not too
satisfied. or not satisfied at all?
‘v'ifi‘.’ 3.1153121: 4
BEST?! $$TI$FIED 3
i3? TOO 5&TISFIED 2

K I SthiFIZD AT ALL

.J

Let's say that your family life is the azount of tize you
spend and the things you do with your family. Let's use the
zero to one hundred scale again. Suppose one hundred represents
the perfect family life - the ideal family life for you. and
zero represents the worst possible family life that you can

imagine.

?5. How would you rate your present fazily life? .‘TILG
77. how would you rate the best family life you
could ever hope for? ' EATING

78. hoe satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your social
life - the amount of tine you spend and the things you do
with your friends? Very satisfied. pretty satisfied, not

too satisfied. or not satisfied at all?

VEF‘.’ SATISFI': 4
PEE”TY SATISFIED 3
LOT TCC SATISFIED 2
LOT SATIEFIZD AT ALL 1

Spend and the

‘ -.
scs-e a:

..J

worst possible social life that you

ain.

ifs - the

s say that your social

79. how would you

33. How would you

you could ever hope for?

31. How
of free

not :30

Izagine the zero

. .
358 C35:

ideal amount of free tize for you. and zero represent
worst possible amount of freetiae

32. How would you rate

present?

53 How would :ou rate

tize you could ever hope

satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the azount

. d I ‘
sat-siled.

red represents

t.ings you do with
suppose one hundred

ideal social for

-ize you have?

amount

2'70

life is the amount of time you

rate your present

the pest

Very satisfied.

to one hundred scale

s perfect amount

St

your friends.
you. and zero represents
can izagine.

social life?

(0

b h
be.

of free time you have at

represents the perfect socisl

the

h) \u

.4

271

34. how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your family's
financial situation? Very satisfied. pretty satisfied. not too
satisfied. not satisfied at all?
VSEI SATISFIED
PRETTY SATISFIED
ACT TCO SATISFIED
tcr SATISFIED AT ALL
Using the scale one acre tine. suppose one hundred
represents the perfect financial situation. your ideal
financial situation. and zero represents the worst possible
financial situation that you can imagine.

35. how would you rate your family's present financial

situation? RATING
36. How would you rate the best fanily financial
situation that you could ever hope for? “ATIXS

We've talked about yarious aspects of your life; now I
want to ash you about your life as a whole.
37. How satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?
Very satisfied. pretty satisfied. not too satisiied. or not

eat sfied at all?

\d

\el

’J

2'72

3 . how happy would you say you are these days? Very happy,

pretty happy. not too happy. or not happy at all.

. ...‘il' .1453?! 4'
25—2TY HAPPY 3
LOT T00 55??! 2

SCI 56??! 5T aLL l

59. what single change do you think would make the greatest

improvement in your life?

 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND DRTA

 

90. are you now: :arried. widowed. divorced. separated. or

have you never been married?
NAEBIED
SZPnEATED
DIVCEJED
wIDCWED

LEVER IRREIEL

IF 335.302.3515? 15 $353231). ASK:

‘0
0"

how zany years have you been married?

's‘
g!
0"
(I)

h)
\DJ

273

 

24
IF THE EES2OLDELT ZS SEPARATE: 0R DIVORcED. ASK:
92. how long have you been separated? hOhTES____
XEnFS_____
I? 333 3§§§CADELI IS DIVOESED. «SK:
9}. How long has it seen since your divorce became final? MCNTHS____
ZEAR$_____
IF ESE RESPGXDEAT IS A HIDOV. ass:
9A. how long have you been a widow? ROSTES____
BEARS

\H

9 . What is your religion. if any? Is it Protestant.
Catholic. Jewish, sons other religion (which?) or no religion?
PEOTESTALI l

CATECLIC 2

 

 

JEWISH 3
OTEER 4
(specify)
KOKE 5
RECORD 5! OBSERVATION 0ND; IF POSSIBLE:
96. Are you (READ WITH PAUSES) a White or Caucasian person?
a slacx person? Chicano. Spanish-American or hexican-american?
or a :enoer of any other eth.ic or racial minority group (which?).
«HITS l
dLn-K 2
crxcaxo 3
0793? A

 

2774

 

 

 

25
97. What is the highest grade or year you finished and get
credit for in regular school. college or vocational school?
GRADE/YEAR
IF SZ-ZPLOIED. ASK:
98. What kind of work do you do? What is your :ain
occupation called? OOOUPaTION:
I? ma 53520;:an IS ;:_O_1;":.uasxan ...xn mm; :.ms ass
susslatnsxzr TO 103.
99. What is your husoand's religion. if any? Is it Protestant..
Catholic. Jewish. some other religion (which?). or no religion?
PROTESTAhT
:n.dOLIO
JaJISH
OTHER
(specify)
hCKE
RECORD 3! OBSERVATION CALI. IF POSSIBLE:
133. Is your husband (REaD RITE RAUSES) a white or Oaucasian
person? a Black person? Chicano. Spanish-uncrican. or hexicen-
nnsrican? or a memoer of any other ethnic or racial nlnority
group (which?)?
thIE 1
ELnJK 2
.. IOAI. 3
OTHER 4

 

(specify)

h)

\Il

\fl

275

101. What is the highest grade or year your husband finished

and got credit for in regular school.

i r 322L325 ASK:
lC2. what kind of work does your husband do?
occupation called?

RECORD 3? OBSERVATION

 

college or vocational

hkfit is his main

 

 

OCCCPATIOL:
, 3 20 E:

103. How tany rcons do you have in your hone. not counting

hallways an‘ bathrooms?

ONLI IF FIAISHED ALD FuRhIShED.)

HAKD FLASHCARD TO

'1

faaily income in 1978 before taxes?

ONDEKT ARD ASK:

' e

1
0 6-5

(COUNT ROOMS IX BASEMERT OR ATTIC

34. For statistical purposes only. will you please look at

.is card and tell :e which letter best represents your total

should include all

the :onsy earned by yourself and all the :eobers of your

facily living with you. any public ass stance or other financial

aid, net inccne fro: any

fi - .
gifts. rent you

I? JnSEE-AIZ.

what would be your

business.

best guess?

dividends.

and any other incoze.

interest. pensions.

 

 

.nis concludes the

cooperation.

Q

Are

interview.

to connunicate to the project director?

FESPOIJEsT' S OOH-15.53357 QUEST]:

A‘
Utes:

Thanx you very much for your

any questions or comments you would like as

 

 

276

INTERVIEHER'S COMHEATS
where did you take t.is interview? (Respondent's hone,

place of work. etc)

 

was anyone else present during the interView2

 

Hho? (fiespondent's huecand. children, etc.)

 

 

were there any interruptions during the interview?

 

ZescriCe

 

 

Did the respondent appear to react emotionally or streesfully

to any part of the interview?

 

Descrioe(Give question nunoers if relevant)

 

 

what was the respondent's attitude to you?

 

to the interview?

 

how careful did the respondent appear to be in giving her

.I . n
.$:.Lr30

[n
'1

 

Is there anything else about the respondent or the interview that

we should know in interpreting this interview?

 

 

Additional Comments:

 

 

 

Z?77

TOIAL FAMILK INCOHE IN 1978 - EEPOEE TAXES

ALL MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY LIVIKG IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD

A. UNDER 33.COO A BEAR

3. 53.000 TC $4.999 A IEAR

C. $5.000 TO $6.999 A YEAR

D. 37.000 TO 69.999 A YEAR

$10,030 TO 311.999 A KERR

H

H
(3
4,.
*1
‘3
\L)
\O
\0
3
E
:1

G. $15.0CO TO 319.999 A 223R

5. #20,000 TO 324.999 A IEnR

i. 325.000 who even a 2:35

278

 

'- i}--|I -

 

{49ml

 

 

 

 

VII v vi'I’I

..m uzwx¢o3 maze: madame

Szzm>m

 

2325?. <

 

3.35:

 

 

 

 

279

:ra/Tcxi’l/Ieu/ Mama Fe) AMI

 

i

L

EL] 3’7}: 5.69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. ' L :3 U " a; ' 72' ‘ :
E u. .- ' -. -- .. e, i .v 7 . . '
i..Jnm: «a? willie-'5 Rev-As? Wear-#9 was»; cal/cadet! Reads fies/5w LCM/53w
1 I ;
z i ?
a ?
i . i
a ; ? i
l 2 z ! l
i z ; i t
9 i . :
E 3
z 1 .
; l i
e E . E
; z z 5
; g i ? l
i * " 5
t 3 1 ' f
S i
i
i
s
0
1
a
i ;
E !
I
i ‘ ‘ a
i .'

 

 

r—J
O

“J

280

REIhT= VIEW
RESP Ol\ DER I l. UI-iISER
IKTERVIEH GATE

 

 

REIKTEEVIEH '72

 

how many hours. if any. did you spend during the seven days

from to doing laundry.
sending. housecleaning. straightening, yard. car and pet

care. and any repairs to; your family? 30435 ___
Sow :any hours did you spend doing these thinjs during the
last seven days? sets;
How zany hours. if any, did your children at home spend

during the seven days from to

 

preparing meals and snacxs f r you fan " and cleaning up
afterward? EGGS:
how :any hours did they spend doing these things durin; the
last seven days? . 53:35
How many of your parents are living in Lansing and its
suburbs? 3L33_n
how :any brothers and sisters over 18 do you have living
within the same area? ndXsZn

are these numbers the same as they were on

 

12: no
(difference? }

 

How satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?

Very satisfied. pretty satisfied. not too satisfied. or not

satisfied at all? V: L25
nd .:'
.~ .e

Is this any different than you felt on

 

22$ LO

2£31

hon-Respondent intezyiew
Hello. This is from the Family Work Survey at
Michigan State University. Could I ask you a few cuestions?
(5.39qu A: masses?)

-. Cn april 5 were you married, separated. divorced. widowed. or
never :arried?

IF naasggyx and were you living with your husband?

;__ hasten, 'iJI'i‘I-I means 9 nxvoscsn
_.._., 2~Ln.-.r.13.D. HUME easier 5 2113025221)
E masseuse 2.: saves names

2. what was your age on april fifth?
3. were you enplcyed or self-employed at that tine?

I? ’la: Full-tine or part time?

 

4. what is the highest grade or year you finished and got credit
for in public school. college or vocational school?

_ stances-x annex. success i; causes cancels: '
12 nIS-I scscot GRADUaTE (incisions cecal-:2)

Are you a :enber of any minority group?

\H
e

;3 YES: Which?

ll):
E‘
r;
‘ :

§ EEABISJ-SPEAKILG. etc.

5. her many children under 18 did you have living with you
around april 5?

’. how many of then were under 6 years old?
3. What is the nearest street intersection to your hope?

Sffiaaf l LIREET 2

 

 

9. Could you give as an idea of your pproxinate total income
last year counting everything?

16. Were you receiving any financial assistance from any public
agency in harsh or April this year?

1. Is your telephone nuzber unlisted?

Thank you.

 

282

~ua ~ _P

 

 

—— -"Q'. Ma =‘———v
‘ — -- '.

 

— ac...“-

 

 

_w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gametes Q...“ aqu. WMuizuEE Hm L..P.Wm.mummswmm WE} - ..i
mmK§ mi. .n \ «unifies: mesa. dexwtsemww .wv Scent“ 53m “33 new Ex.» .3 Seamless“
are: E .ems as: :2 to s. 2‘ ass .3 ate
.: s .E .. s .. 4., .... .. .. is _

 

 

QQ..WNES£ «dresses.
8%.... .Eelhowieo «bequ‘aqefmmkfifi

283

 

 

 

 

 

~

 

 

sheila

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 H .mwa .RW «Mun w bah; 3.3» 5.
muse}. n mm a 32.532 ates: a...“ C. .3 VV 2 t 53 x33 use chm 6} .3
are—be as .3. as... :2 a. .33 .3 .3 .35 Se .3 and”;
Q s°s 'e” . e. eh e. on e’ .n .N 0‘
E m an»... Ewflfidudeemy

Skew -EQFJN .3 ed. Equgwan ex mukflfi

284

caLL-eack fiscal??? ENE/7)

 

 

 

; scream ImmL - W ‘SCResA/ER ,’/.3T£S g
; WT smTM ell/wig; ‘
% 55 A’f p
1 H '4’ Sufism/Is ,
95‘ 1‘75} '5‘- my I», 5, v ,/ .
LIanel’As/«JI' D :I [-74 ‘ ’ « ’v ‘A/UJ’JCfi
, i .
1 i i
i i
g E 3
f E f
a l i
i g i
; l ;
‘

 

O - - -- ’0'." ~...— —-.—~_—-_- _